How can you say that??? Of course it does. If you eat 3 meals a day and then don't eat from 6pm till 8am that's 14hrs of fasting. You body naturally slows down. it's almost in starvation mode. Haven't you heard of 6 small meals a day??? Why do you think that is??? Now maybe what I'm doing is a little excessive. But I'm 45yrs old, do no cardio for the time being. 210lbs and 12%bf and that's a high est. And that's not my natural genetics. I have to manipulate it...
Please do some reading before you run your mouth.
Meal frequency does not speed up metabolism AT ALL. Nada. Zip. This has been beaten to death on this and other fora.
Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
Meal frequency and energy balance.
Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM.
Source
INSERM U341, Hotel Dieu de Paris, France.
http://journals.cambridge.org/downl...93a.pdf&code=5a8434660033a3f781bc6fe8a66d382c
CONCLUSIONS AND PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
We conclude that there is robust evidence from several independent laboratories to refute the hypothesis that feeding frequency is a significant determinant of energetic efficiency in human subjects when assessed over 24 h or longer. Consequently, feeding frequency has no significant impact on the rate of weight loss during energy restriction. We further conclude that the epidemiological studies which have suggested that nibbling is associated with leanness are extremely vulnerable to methodological errors which may generate spurious relationships due to dietary under-reporting and post hoc alterations in eating patterns in response to weight gain. Although these may not totally invalidate the cross-sectional studies, they highlight the need for considerable caution in interpreting the results and point to the need for a more critical analysis in the future.
Since we conclude that feeding frequency has no discernible effect on 24 h energy expenditure, then any putative effects on regulation of body weight must be mediated through effects on the intake side of the energy balance equation.
Starvation does not happen this quickly. For this, I turn to Martin Berkhan, who has likely forgotten more on the subject than I will ever know:
Top Ten Fasting Myths Debunked (Major Update Nov 4th) | Intermittent fasting diet for fat loss, muscle gain and health
4. Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".
Truth
Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.
Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).
Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).
Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.
Origin
I guess some genius read that fasting or starvation causes metabolic rate to drop and took that to mean that meal skipping, or not eating for a day or two, would cause starvation mode.
5. Myth: Maintain a steady supply of amino acids by eating protein every 2-3 hours. The body can only absorb 30 grams of protein in one sitting.
Truth
Whenever you hear something really crazy you need to ask yourself if it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. It's a great way to quickly determine if something may be valid or if it's more likely a steaming pile of horseshit. This myth is a great example of the latter. Do you think we would be here today if our bodies could only make use of 30 grams of protein per meal?
The simple truth is that more protein just takes a longer time to digest and be utilized. For some concrete numbers, digestion of a standard meal is still incomplete after five hours. Amino acids are still being released into your bloodstream and absorbed into muscles. You are still "anabolic." This is a fairly standard "Average Joe"-meal: 600 kcal, 75 g carbs, 37 g protein and 17 g fat. Best of all? This was after eating pizza, a refined food that should be quickly absorbed relatively speaking.
Think about this for a second. How long do you think a big steak, with double the protein intake of the above example, and a big pile of veggies would last you? More than 10 hours, that's for sure. Meal composition plays an important role in absorption speed, especially when it comes to amino acids. Type of protein, fiber, carbohydrates and prior meals eaten all affect how long you'll have amino acids released and being taken up by tissues after meals.
and i have pritty low BF, but this is NOT genetics ad before i was not eating as well now i do and i eat 3X more yet carry alot less fat.
