Obesity Discussion Forums

[Kel]

Usually I am having three bigger meals: breakfast, lunch, dinner. But there are many people who say that it is healthier to have several smaller meals during the day. I think that this is not so good for your weight loss because that means snacking more often. What would you say? Which is the best way to eat?

[Alex]

Several small meals. Your metabolism works the hardest (and isn't consuming lean mass) when you've got calories to burn. That's why people who eat WAY below their caloric needs or try to outright starve themselves often have it backfire, because your body holds onto its stores more carefully if you're not getting a sufficient, constant caloric intake.

Some people break their meals into six to eight very small meals per day (between 100-200 calories) but I HAVE to have something resembling an actual sit-down "meal" rather than a snack. So, I have reasonably small portions for my breakfast-lunch-dinner meals and then snack on healthy stuff in between. I try to eat something about every 2 or 2 1/2 hours. Based on your target caloric intake, you'll have to plan it out, but I've found that works best for me. Keeps the metabolic rate and you don't really get much of a chance to feel hungry.

Oh, and drink water too, preferably every time you eat! Works wonders. Your body has less of a chance to "crave" for things if it's already getting what it really needs (good food with needed nutrients, hydration through water, etc).

[Obesity Discussion]

Originally Posted by Kel

Usually I am having three bigger meals: breakfast, lunch, dinner. But there are many people who say that it is healthier to have several smaller meals during the day. I think that this is not so good for your weight loss because that means snacking more often. What would you say? Which is the best way to eat?

For weight loss, in theory, it physically doesn't make too much a difference, because what really does matter at the end of the day is how many calories you consume....I personally am not quite 100% sold on the drastic difference in metabolism changes from 3 to 6 meals for non-athletes.

Now, for some, if eating 6 smaller meals a day makes your body feel like it's eating more food (even though it's not consuming any more calories), then that would be a better option. I would recommend eating 5-6 smaller meals if you can fit it into your schedule however, as there are some other benefits to do so.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Alex

Several small meals. Your metabolism works the hardest (and isn't consuming lean mass) when you've got calories to burn.

A larger meal simply sits in your GI tract longer and takes longer to digest.

+1-1 = 0

+2-2 = 0

That's why people who eat WAY below their caloric needs or try to outright starve themselves often have it backfire, because your body holds onto its stores more carefully if you're not getting a sufficient, constant caloric intake.

It has nothing to do with consistency and everything to do with sufficiency.

Starve your body and the physiological adaptations will go into overdrive.

Provide adequate calories by means of 3 meals or 10 meals and you get the same net result.

[Kel]

Okay so maybe I should change my behaviour of eating. I think I could also fit five or six smaller meals in my schedule. At least I am going to try it. But one meal is already something like a piece of fruit, isn't it? Or do I need to eat something real like bread or pasta?

[Steve]

Fruit is fake and bread is real?

When I say meal, I mean something more balanced than one 'unit' of food.

Think something like fish, rice, and a veggie.

[Kel]

Well so you would say that something like fruit or bread isn't "real food"? But then I think it will be very difficult for most people to have about five meals a day. I mean you can't cook anything while you are in the office all day. Or is something like a carrot okay as you mentioned veggies?

[MikeB]

I take Uncle Ben's 90 second rice packs - brown & wild mixed and open a can of tuna or salmon and mix in a little plastic bowl I also drink a can of v8 for my 10:30 meal. Takes about 2 minutes to make and about 5 minutes to eat. I also have cottage cheese with either pineapple or peaches in the afternoon around 2:30. Between those I have my pre/post workout shakes and workout for lunch.

[Obesity Discussion]

Originally Posted by Kel

Well so you would say that something like fruit or bread isn't "real food"? But then I think it will be very difficult for most people to have about five meals a day. I mean you can't cook anything while you are in the office all day. Or is something like a carrot okay as you mentioned veggies?

There are a lot of other options....I bring deli meat and bread to work and make sandwiches, I also get South Beach lunch boxes and frozen dinners/pizzas to take to work too. Peanut butter sandwiches sometimes, leftovers or precooked foods from home which I heat up in the microwave, and the list goes on and on. It's doable.

[Kel]

I totally agree that you might takes food to work but I don't think it will be possible to eat all these eals there. I mean you are there for working and not for eating. It is fine for lunch but I think that my boss wouldn't recommend me to stop working not just one but three times a day to eat :-) Well but this is probably depend of the work. Nevertheless I will try to have some more smaller meals-at least at the weekend!

[Steve]

I'm certainly not suggesting you must eat 3 times while you are at work. Eat one for all I care... it's about net calories at the end of the day.... not hour by hour.

If you want to eat more times while at the office though, simply take shorter lunches and divide up the 30-60 minutes they give you.

And if there are people that take breaks to smoke at your office, you damn well better demand that you can take some breaks to eat.

I used to work at a strict office and that's the angle I took. I ate 3 meals while at work. Some of them I ate at my desk, but I never missed!

It's all about prepping your food in advance so you can get in the kitchen and get out as efficiently as possible.

[Obesity Discussion]

Originally Posted by Steve

I'm certainly not suggesting you must eat 3 times while you are at work. Eat one for all I care... it's about net calories at the end of the day.... not hour by hour.

If you want to eat more times while at the office though, simply take shorter lunches and divide up the 30-60 minutes they give you.

And if there are people that take breaks to smoke at your office, you damn well better demand that you can take some breaks to eat.

I used to work at a strict office and that's the angle I took. I ate 3 meals while at work. Some of them I ate at my desk, but I never missed!

It's all about prepping your food in advance so you can get in the kitchen and get out as efficiently as possible.

I was just thinking the same thing....that if people can go take smoke breaks, there's no reason why someone couldn't take a few minutes to make something to eat. I do it all the time and no one has ever said anything to me.

[NewSkinnyMe]

I've read that eating more often helps keep your blood sugar more stable, and that helps keep you from getting hungry. It also helps keep your body from holding on to fat (in "starvation" mode).

I've also read that while calories are important, keeping your blood sugar stabilized is actually more so. That it's when we have too much glucose in our blood that the body stores it as fat. So eating say 200 calories of some high glycemic response food is more damaging than 200 calories of a low glycemic response food.

Say a 200 calorie portion of cake would do more damage to the waistline than 200 calories of lean chicken.

Is this correct? Or are the calories all that matter?

Lori

[Steve]

Originally Posted by NewSkinnyMe

I've read that eating more often helps keep your blood sugar more stable

Tends to be the case.

and that helps keep you from getting hungry.

For some.

Not others.

It also helps keep your body from holding on to fat (in "starvation" mode).

Not at all.

Starvation mode = physiological adaptation to dieting.

Said adaptation does not occur based on the frequency of feeding. It does however occur whenever you are in a net caloric deficit.

If you are dieting, you are in the starvation mode.... it's just a very over-hyped word anymore is all.

I've also read that while calories are important, keeping your blood sugar stabilized is actually more so. That it's when we have too much glucose in our blood that the body stores it as fat.

Nope.

You can't create something out of nothing.

Whoever you've been reading is sorely mistaken.

I mean cripes, they're still clinging to the model of insulin = fat?

Using the insulin model of lipogenesis is outdated and ignores the last ~20years of research.

You need to realize while insulin is raised, and the body is at an energetic deficit, the body has to provide energy from somewhere, and ultimately this somewhere is fat, hence the, "you can't create something out of nothing" statement above.

So eating say 200 calories of some high glycemic response food is more damaging than 200 calories of a low glycemic response food.

Nope, a deficit is a deficit.

And the glycemic index can be a little misleading anyhow.

Is this correct? Or are the calories all that matter?

Macronutrients certainly matter.

They don't however, take precedent over energy balance.

[alohanema]

Of course I will choose several smaller meals instead of three big meals, but how can you eat when you are at work or school?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by alohanema

Of course I will choose several smaller meals instead of three big meals, but how can you eat when you are at work or school?

Who says you have to?

[NewSkinnyMe]

Steve --

Thanks for your reply. But I have to admit I am confused. I've been doing much research lately with the goal of making this the last time I ever need to lose weight. I want to create a healthier lifestyle I can stick to.

You mention insulin being raised while the body is at an energetic defecit. The way I understood it, the body stores excess glucose as fat only when there's an excess -- when there is more than the body needs for energy. That glucose has to go somewhere, so it is stored as fat.

I'm having a very hard time grasping that 200 calories of cake is not more detrimental to weight loss than 200 calories of chicken. The sugar, the carbs, the fat -- comparing those to 200 calories of lower-fat (assuming we're talking lean breasts) protein seems to be a no-brainer to me. The body has to react differently to thost two things.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or be ugly -- I'm trying to understand.

Lori

[Steve]

Originally Posted by NewSkinnyMe

Steve --

Thanks for your reply. But I have to admit I am confused. I've been doing much research lately with the goal of making this the last time I ever need to lose weight. I want to create a healthier lifestyle I can stick to.

You mention insulin being raised while the body is at an energetic defecit. The way I understood it, the body stores excess glucose as fat only when there's an excess -- when there is more than the body needs for energy. That glucose has to go somewhere, so it is stored as fat.

I'm having a very hard time grasping that 200 calories of cake is not more detrimental to weight loss than 200 calories of chicken. The sugar, the carbs, the fat -- comparing those to 200 calories of lower-fat (assuming we're talking lean breasts) protein seems to be a no-brainer to me. The body has to react differently to thost two things.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or be ugly -- I'm trying to understand.

Lori

Trust me, I understand your intent and it's good.

I simply said that insulin does not = fat.

This doesn't mean that cake is better than chicken.

The bottom line is, if you are in a caloric deficit, you aren't going to store anything.

Sure, eat a caloric deficit full of cakes and candy and compare it with a caloric deficit full of chicken and brocolli and the latter deficit is most likely going to leave you looking and feeling much better.

But that doesn't mean anything with regards to insulin making you fat in an energy deficit. That's my point.

Where are you doing your 'research.' Metabolism is a very complex subject.... if you're that interested in it, I'd suggest buying some text books which I could recommend. But they are heavy reading, rightfully so, as it's a heavy subject.

You are intertwining the ideas of thermodynamics and macronutrients.

1 unit of energy will ALWAYS be 1 unit of energy.

Ever see this:

Truth In Fitness - A 501(c)(3) Organization

Glucose is glucose, amino acids are amino acids. Ratios are important but WHERE they come from matter less.

[NewSkinnyMe]

I've gotten my information from several sources, including my own Doctors. Perhaps the fact that I've been a yo-yo dieter, and that I've suffered from insulin resistance makes a difference. Perhaps I need a different solution than the average dieter.

Don't know if I can post links yet, but I've gotten information from places like glycemicindex.com, and from reading a lot of various diet books.

One study I recently found (though it's not brand new) says this:

ScienceDaily (Jul. 26, 2006) — The most effective diet for weight loss and cardiovascular health is a high carbohydrate plan based on low glycemic index (GI) foods, according to a study by University of Sydney researchers.

Published in the most recent issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, the world's first 12 week parallelled, randomised, controlled trial compared the relative effects on weight loss and cardiovascular risk of low GI and high-protein diets.

"Our findings suggest that dietary glycemic load, and not just overall energy intake influences weight loss and postprandial glycaemia (blood sugar levels after eating)," said Joanna McMillan-Price.

"We found that moderate reductions in glycemic load appear to increase the rate of body fat loss, particularly in women. Diets based on low-glycemic index, whole grain products, tend to be better for the heart, maximising cardiovascular risk reduction - particularly if protein intake is high," said Joanna McMillan-Price.

Granted, this is just one study. But I've seen others, I just can't locate them at the moment. And I'm sure you can point me to loads of studies that say calories are all that matter, too. That's the thing about studies -- they're confusing to the average person such as myself.

Buying textbooks is too much for me, too -- I'm just looking for a simple plan that I can follow for life, that will help me lose this extra weight and keep it off. I don't want to count calories or carbs or fat grams or points or anything - I don't want to think about it that much. I'm busy.

So while I appreciate what you're saying, it seems to me that this is the best way to go -- I can buy foods based on these parameters (lower glycemic index, lean proteins, etc.) and plan meals based on these guidelines without having to measure or count.

Sorry for the rant! And thanks for the info.

Lori

[Kel]

Well, probably you are right. Many of my colleague smoke and as I don't they have much more breaks than me. So maybe I could really try to have small meals at work. Nevertheless I think that all the others would think I am crazy. You know smoking has become quite normal during the last years in companies, but eating...not really...