http://health.msn.com/nutrition/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100215779&page=1

You know, whenever I check my e-mail I always see this little headlines that catch my attention. Now, I might assume that their nutritional advice, like their relationship advice, is crap. But, I have to say, this article really concerns me, since it claims that a number of things that I've learned on this board are false. For instance, it claims that it's a myth that eating 6 meals is better than eating 3 meals, which goes against pretty much everything I've learned on this board. It also claims that it's a myth that raw vegetables are healthier than cooked vegetables, which is another thing that goes against what I learned on this board. See, this is why people have such a hard time eating healthy. They learn all this information about how to eat healthy, and then someone else comes along and tells them that the information they have is crap. Eventually, they're frustrated with trying to sort through the mess of information out there and they just give up.

http://health.msn.com/nutrition/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100215779&page=1

You know, whenever I check my e-mail I always see this little headlines that catch my attention. Now, I might assume that their nutritional advice, like their relationship advice, is crap. But, I have to say, this article really concerns me, since it claims that a number of things that I've learned on this board are false. For instance, it claims that it's a myth that eating 6 meals is better than eating 3 meals, which goes against pretty much everything I've learned on this board. It also claims that it's a myth that raw vegetables are healthier than cooked vegetables, which is another thing that goes against what I learned on this board. See, this is why people have such a hard time eating healthy. They learn all this information about how to eat healthy, and then someone else comes along and tells them that the information they have is crap. Eventually, they're frustrated with trying to sort through the mess of information out there and they just give up.

The 6 small meals thing scientifically hasn't been proven to be better for weight loss, but it does help reduce cravings that cause out of plan snacking, and it keeps the hormonal profile a bit more level (insulin mainly). I personally find it works for my preferences, but there is nothing to say it's the only way.

Cooking food is generally not a bad thing, and I'm not sure where the whole raw foods ideas come from. Some food nutrients are actually more bioavailable once cooked.

There's nothing too revolutionary there that's that far out of what's said here. I kind of wish they'd have picked other myths to attack, such as protein and fat are bad.

I disagree with their still bashing butter over junk vegetable oil based spreads. Saturated fats inherently aren't evil.

What an annoying article. As with most of these types of nutrition articles that are geared more toward keeping the material interesting as opposed to accurate, it grossly oversimplifies things.

I don't think there is anyone here who actually believes grapefruit has negative calories (or is there?). But compared to other fruits, it does have a certain fat-burning effect. Also, eating 6 meals will not make you lose more weight, but there are still a lot of benefits, like lower cholesterol, better energy distribution, lower triglycerides.

The 6 small meals thing scientifically hasn't been proven to be better for weight loss, but it does help reduce cravings that cause out of plan snacking, and it keeps the hormonal profile a bit more level (insulin mainly). I personally find it works for my preferences, but there is nothing to say it's the only way.
.

That is exactly right...especially in a calorie deficit where insulin doesn't matter as much. So there are potentially psychological reasons but very few physiological reasons. If you eat 2500 kcals over 3 meals or 6 meals I don't believe there is much difference.

However, I like to eat more at each meal. Psychologically that fits me.


But compared to other fruits, it does have a certain fat-burning effect.. What fat-burning effect is that? Also, eating 6 meals will not make you lose more weight, but there are still a lot of benefits, like lower cholesterol, better energy distribution, lower triglycerides. I don't believe this to be true. Some of the intermittent fasting information is actually showing the opposite.

On either side I don't think it would be significant though. Losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight would be much larger factors than number of meals, imo.

I thought the 6 meals thing was to keep your body from going into starvation mode? I thought that after 4 hours your body goes into starvation mode and starts storing calories as fat? Is this not true? Personally, I eat 5 meals a day, as I'm not up for enough hours to eat 6 meals a day.

I thought the 6 meals thing was to keep your body from going into starvation mode? I thought that after 4 hours your body goes into starvation mode and starts storing calories as fat? Is this not true? Personally, I eat 5 meals a day, as I'm not up for enough hours to eat 6 meals a day.

No, you don't go into "starvation mode" if you eat less frequently. The idea of starvation mode refers to eating far fewer calories than you burn and that you stop losing weight because your body holds on to all the fat because it thinks you're starving. While some people doubt that starvation mode actually exists, I've experienced it myself so I think it's a valid theory.

The reasoning behind eating more frequently used to be that it increases metabolism but that hasn't been proven scientifically. As Andy points out, though, there are other benefits of eating 5-6 meals as opposed to 3. Personally, I just get hungry ever 2-3 hours when I'm training hard so it seems natural to eat more often instead of waiting.

What fat-burning effect is that?

Naringin's synergistic effect with caffeine (I didn't say it was a lot). But my original point is that it's funny the article claims to have busted the myth that grapefruit has negative calories. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that some people will actually believe that it does.


I don't believe this to be true. Some of the intermittent fasting information is actually showing the opposite.

On either side I don't think it would be significant though.


I'm not sure what you mean by intermittent fasting, but there are a lot of studies that show that eating 6 smaller meals will lower your cholesterol by a statistically significant amount.


Losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight would be much larger factors than number of meals, imo.

That, of course, is obvious and something I agree with. But a lot of people who aren't healthy and have high cholesterol and are just starting to exercise could use whatever help they can. I think the level of benefit of you get from spreading out your meals is certainly enough to warrant consideration...especially for someone with a poor lipid profile.

No, you don't go into "starvation mode" if you eat less frequently. The idea of starvation mode refers to eating far fewer calories than you burn and that you stop losing weight because your body holds on to all the fat because it thinks you're starving. While some people doubt that starvation mode actually exists, I've experienced it myself so I think it's a valid theory..

If you are in a calorie deficit, over time you will always lose fat. At some point lbm goes too though. Right or wrong that is what I would define as starvation mode...the body burning significant amounts of lbm for fuel.

Personally, I just get hungry ever 2-3 hours when I'm training hard so it seems natural to eat more often instead of waiting.

If you eat every 2-3 hours then you will get hungry every 2-3 hours. If you change your eating habits your hunger will accomodate the new eating habits.

If you eat less frequently and in more quantity the food just stays in the gut longer.

I'm not sure what you mean by intermittent fasting, but there are a lot of studies that show that eating 6 smaller meals will lower your cholesterol by a statistically significant amount.



That, of course, is obvious and something I agree with. But a lot of people who aren't healthy and have high cholesterol and are just starting to exercise could use whatever help they can. I think the level of benefit of you get from spreading out your meals is certainly enough to warrant consideration...especially for someone with a poor lipid profile.

Eating one day and not the other. Eating for 5 hours and not the other 19. A lot of different ways to set it up. Some believe it is showing the same positive health effects that long term calorie restriction does, i.e. longevity.

Martin (www.leangains.com) would probably be the best well known proponent of this method in the fitness community.

they just give up.

Right there, the reason for failure among people who try to get fit.

A lot of drive is required for a person to not only learn all the different theories of nutrition and fitness, but to try them for extended periods of time to personally validate them.

Success comes from trying and trying until you are able to find a system that works for you. From that point, achieving goals is simply a matter of time and consistency.

I've tried everything from low carb diets and lots of cardio to prolonged fasting. I recently found a system that seems to be working very well for me. Only time will tell me how effective my personal system is for me. Took me a few years to get here, though.