5

So, I've lived a sedentary lifestyle these past few years (ahem, whole life), and developed a bit of a spare tire around my midsection. There are several people at work who live very active, healthy lifestyles, and I have decided that I want to be more like them, and less like my current status. This is also stated here: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/eat-less-more-frequently-to-boost-your-metabolism.html and here: http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/eating-smaller-meals-frequently-speed-up-metabolism-5680.html

I've received a lot of good-natured, helpful advice from them, and the overwhelming majority of it, I've been able to research on Google Scholar or my university's online library to corroborate as being factual or scientifically plausible. To the best of my knowledge and research, their advice has been generally very good and scientifically sound.

There is one thing they keep suggesting I do to help boost my metabolism: eat numerous (snack every 2-3 hours) small meals a day rather than a traditional 3-meal breakfast, lunch and dinner. For a variety of reasons, this does not personally suit me, and quite frankly, the reasons I've been given as to why this happens don't seem to line up with what little research I have seen on the topic.

With all things being equal other than the frequency of feeding, does the frequency of feeding (numerous small meals as opposed to three regular meals) provide a metabolic boost over another?

Please note that I am specifically asking about the effect each method has on metabolic rates, although any related information as to overall benefits or disadvantages to either dietary method are welcome.

Flimzy
  • 15,520
  • 14
  • 63
  • 132
FrancisHoneywellCollins3
  • 51
  • 1
  • 3
    Duplicate: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2173/are-small-and-frequent-meals-better-for-health/5904 – JasonR Jul 25 '16 at 19:56
  • @JasonR I don't believe this is a duplicate; this question specifically focuses on whether there are metabolic changes due to the frequency of meals, whereas the question you linked asks about overall health. Not the same thing. – Andy Jul 26 '16 at 12:26
  • @andy true, there are slight differences I suppose, but the question still suffers from other issues before it will meet the standards of this site (notability for one). – JasonR Jul 26 '16 at 12:35
  • @JasonR So then point out those issues instead of claiming its a duplicate. FWI, I've edited in some links that also say what the OPs coworkers are claiming. – Andy Jul 26 '16 at 12:43
  • I suspect you'll have better luck over at http://fitness.stackexchange.com/ – Graham Jul 26 '16 at 16:22
  • @JasonR When I posted the question I had already read the post with the duplicate answer you linked. I wanted to make sure that I was specifically addressing metabolism (because that is what is being claimed), and not overall health. Graham may be correct... I didn't know there was a fitness exchange. I'll try there. – FrancisHoneywellCollins3 Jul 26 '16 at 18:24
  • Okay, "Possible Duplicate". I just find things like metabolism and health to be such poorly defined terms when speaking of diets and such that it could be considered the same thing. :) – JasonR Jul 26 '16 at 18:38
  • @graham no he won't, this would be off-topic there. – John Jul 28 '16 at 12:16
  • What does "boost metabolism" mean? How would this be measured? – Flimzy Jul 28 '16 at 13:59
  • @Flimzy Typically people mean to increase metabolism, to effect higher calorie burn, which can help with weight loss. – Andy Jul 28 '16 at 21:44
  • @Andy: What does "increase metabolism" mean? How can this be measured? – Flimzy Jul 29 '16 at 06:31
  • @Flimzy Try googling basal metabolic rate – Andy Jul 29 '16 at 22:06

0 Answers0