I was wondering would eating smaller meals every hour opose to eating them every 2 hours have the same/better/worse efect on your BMR

I eat every 2.5-3 hours, and sometimes I'm not even hungry then. The biggest overall impact on your progress is going to be your macros, and how clean you keep your diet.

Obviously a taco an hour isn't going to be as good as chicken and broccoli every 3.

well im not eating a taco an hour but for example, today i had breakfast. then 1 hr later little yogurt pack. then protien bat, some carbs for lunch. and then an apple and carrot, I dident have much time to plan this out for today but tomarrow will be better. But im sure you get the idea.

Studies have shown that eating more frequently does not speed up metabolism, so it doesn't matter. There are other reasons for eating more frequently than the standard 3 meals a day, though, such as keeping blood sugar stable and fueling your body after a workout.

If you feel you're getting hungry to quick, cutting back on carbs will help (i.e. minimal fruits, carbs only from green veggies, etc).

eating once an hour can be a good idea if you eat in sequence: carb,fat(good), protein.
carlories for each food should be between 50-80 calories depending on your body weight and activity level.
Very clean foods once an hour is about 33 feedings a day.
Try this and see how you feel and if you get any leaner.

Studies have shown that eating more frequently does not speed up metabolism, so it doesn't matter. There are other reasons for eating more frequently than the standard 3 meals a day, though, such as keeping blood sugar stable and fueling your body after a workout.

You mean that article on the study from NZ that was posted here a month ago (that didn't provide any supporting data for its claims)?

I still feel that eating every 2-3 hours helps boost my metabolism.

You mean that article on the study from NZ that was posted here a month ago (that didn't provide any supporting data for its claims)?

I still feel that eating every 2-3 hours helps boost my metabolism.

There are other studies indicating that the effect on metabolism is a myth. But that doesn't mean that eating more frequently doesn't have other benefits, it just means that you won't burn more energy just because you're eating more often.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9353602&dopt=Abstract

There are other studies indicating that the effect on metabolism is a myth. But that doesn't mean that eating more frequently doesn't have other benefits, it just means that you won't burn more energy just because you're eating more often.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9353602&dopt=Abstract

And I disagree. It doesn't mean that at all. It means someone didn't observe that in THEIR study. There are studies which support the claim that multiple meals can increase your metabolism. There's a study to prove anything.

Your first link, which is not a study - but a review, even states there are reports that say metabolic increases have been observed.

The second link was conducted to confirm the results found in a 4-week study that suggest the exact opposite of what you say. They didn't confirm it, but we don't exactly have the data behind that study to really critique it (unless you have full pubmed access).

I'm simply saying that these studies should be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe for some people, in certain circumstances, depending on the foods you eat (ice cream all day), your metabolism won't increase if you eat absolute crap 6 times a day.

However, I do believe that it's possible to have positive metabolic effects by eating a clean 6 meals a day, as opposed to a clean 3 bigger meals a day.

Not sure if it really matters (3 big versus 5-6 smaller). The key is to eat clean, keep to your target calories and macros, and workout hard. These are the keys - if you are not doing these, the value of 3 vs. 6 meals is irrelevant.

However, I agree with J_W on this (see Christy, we don't always disagree!). I still do 6 smaller meals, but it is because the timings work for me, and I don't get home from work starving (and then eat a bag of chips or such). That alone makes it valuable, whether or not it increases metabolism.

However, I do believe that it's possible to have positive metabolic effects by eating a clean 6 meals a day, as opposed to a clean 3 bigger meals a day.

Good for you. :) I agree that scientific studies shouldn't be taken at face value. Just look at how the scientific community's stance on fat and carbohydrates has changed over the years. Neverthless, I think scientific research can enhance our understanding of several aspects of fitness. There is a lot of unsupported dogma floating around in the bodybuilding world and debunking it is not necessarily a bad thing.

EDIT: Here's (http://www.alanaragon.com/an-objective-look-at-intermittent-fasting.html) an interesting article (with references) written by Alan Aragon and Ryan Zielonka on intermittent fasting, which includes a section about meal frequency. :)

However, I agree with J_W on this (see Christy, we don't always disagree!).

:lol: ;)

EDIT: Here's (http://www.alanaragon.com/an-objective-look-at-intermittent-fasting.html) an interesting article (with references) written by Alan Aragon and Ryan Zielonka on intermittent fasting, which includes a section about meal frequency. :)



:lol: ;)

Alan has recently posted that he has changed his views on IF...

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=184307261&postcount=3064

Alan has recently posted that he has changed his views on IF...

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=184307261&postcount=3064

I didn't post the link for his views on IF but for the section on meal frequency :).