Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We've all been told that if you don't eat often enough, you'll put your body into starvation mode. Supposedly, our starvation response is a product of evolution. Like the engine in my car that can disable several cylinders when it's reached cruising speed, the body can slow down its engine and burn fewer calories if it perceives that food won't be coming any time soon. But is this reaction overstated? Logically, it makes sense why the body would want to slow down the rate at which it burns calories. But sometimes, it feels like people are paranoid. They miss a meal and all of the sudden they're panicking, worried that their body is beginning to eat through valuable muscle and no longer burning fat. Would the starvation response really kick in that fast? Obviously, if I went a day without food, I would expect a metabolic slowdown. But after just one missed meal? Given how scarce food was in ancient times, it seems a bit of a stretch that the human body would start cannibalizing muscle so easily, especially since that muscle would be so important given the physical demands of the average caveman. Is there scientific proof to back this up or is it just a theory? It's not that I disagree with the practice of eating smaller, frequent meals. But like so much that we hear in the world of health and fitness, something can be said often enough and for long enough that people accept it as fact. A perfect example of this how so many people still think it's good to eat dairy. Part of why they think this is because they've heard it for so long that it's become ingrained. Is the idea of eating more often another example and would the starvation response kick in so fast? Or is it more likely that your metabolism would only exhibit a mild slowdown and just rely on stored body fat instead of immediately eating away at muscle?
This is a good topic. I have heard it is healthy to occasionally fast and know people who do it on a regular basis. It seems there are believers of both eating several small meals and eating fewer large meals. There are probably pros and cons to both. I'm not sure myself. If you want to know how it would affect your body, you could try it out. I've actually been wondering about this lately and decided to skip breakfast a couple of days. I felt surprisingly fine, especially considering not too long ago I was extremely hypoglycemic. I did it 2 days in a row and lost 2 pounds even though I ate more during the rest of the day. I can't afford to lose more than that, so I'm back to eating breakfast.
Digestion requires calorie out put and even dosing of your calories = even blood sugar. (good for loss and not gaining) Also you can only absorb so many nutrients in a time frame. A well fed body has a better metabolism. When you are low on nutrition your body can cling to weight because it needs: calories and nutrients. If its not getting both it is not prime as it could be.
It takes 6-8 weeks for true metabolic changes.
As far as what is going to happen within your body will depend on input, output, training and genetics.
If you want a non-googled opinion, my answer is yes. I don't panic when I skip a meal, but I become hungry, angry and depressed if I don't eat for more than 3-4 hours. This tells me my body is like a furnace burning through the calories I consume so efficiently I need to keep a log on the fire at all times.
If you want a non-googled opinion, my answer is yes. I don't panic when I skip a meal, but I become hungry, angry and depressed if I don't eat for more than 3-4 hours. This tells me my body is like a furnace burning through the calories I consume so efficiently I need to keep a log on the fire at all times.
Well, in the old days we just said things based on our opinion. The small meals thing has come from a scientific viewpoint. I think it has a smaller effect than what some people would make it out to be. Our body takes quite a while to go into true starvation mode, not just 3 or 4 hours. The difference between 3 meals and 6-8 small meals is very small and you can be healthy on either one. It's just something people take and push to the extreme not realizing how small of a difference it really makes. Just because a scientist says something is true doesn't mean it has a noticeable impact on our level.
I have seen other articles that say skinnier people don't worry about skipping a meal every now and then. Another one recently came out saying that our body works out better when we are hungry. My personal habit is 4-5 smaller meals a day, but I think 90% of the benefit is mental.
I don't become angry when I skip a meal. But I am on balanced nutrition, not carb starved. Also not poisoning my body with an unnecessary heavy protein load and chemical supps that increase adrenal stress which does give a negative attitude. Which also leads to weight gain. What a nice cycle there.
If you nitwits have issue with the fact I source my info you can go **** yourself. Its how you communicate facts instead of just mouthing off like a dumb jock.
I don't become angry when I skip a meal. But I am on balanced nutrition, not carb starved. Also not poisoning my body with an unnecessary heavy protein load and chemical supps that increase adrenal stress which does give a negative attitude. Which also leads to weight gain. What a nice cycle there.
If you nitwits have issue with the fact I source my info you can go **** yourself. Its how you communicate facts instead of just mouthing off like a dumb jock.
My oh my. Voodoo science girl gets defensive pretty easily. So much for that "good attitude" lol.
My oh my. Voodoo science girl gets defensive pretty easily. So much for that "good attitude" lol.
Yes she does. She constantly flips out like this... I guess her vegan diet and juice fasting doesn't help her mind and personality. And if I remember correctly, she has a problem with lower body fat and is in fact overweight. So much for the quack dieting and fitness tips googled everyday. I see nothing about her posts which tell me her lifestyle is working.
No, it doesn't. Anyone who really thinks that just doesn't know biology or chemistry that well. Your body isn't that intelligent; in fact, it is quite stupid. It relies on chemical reactions to send information and control mechanisms. These reactions take days to take place. Ever wonder why you're sick for 3+ days? You have the virus in your body BEFORE you show symptoms. Even the healthiest people are like this. It takes a while for your body to even realize you have a foreign substance in your body and a few days to attack. If it were truly intelligent, it would say "virus in sector 5, quarter 8" and attack without you noticing. It doesn't.
So, no, skipping a meal will not make your metabolism die off. In fact, the whole 6 meals a day thing has minimal impact according to scientific studies. Anything more than 3 meals/day shows little metabolic boost if any. If you starved for a week, then yes, you might have a more profound impact. However, if you're starving yourself for a week, you have bigger issues than weight I would think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
