Both sides seem to have their own views and arguments. So what are the right and wrong statements about eating frequency? Today, I will take stock of some common misunderstandings about the frequency of eating, so that everyone can avoid being misled by rumors.
Myth: Eating less and eating more can improve metabolism. Whenever we eat something, our metabolism will increase slightly within a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to decompose and absorb these foods, which is what we often call food thermal effect.
The energy consumed by digesting and absorbing food is directly proportional to the calories and nutrients in the diet.
Now, suppose we use 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat in a 2700-calorie diet to measure the food thermal effect within 24 hours. In the case of only changing the frequency of eating, we can draw three diet plans:
Three meals a day, six meals a day 900 calories, nine meals a day 450 calories, 200 calories. In the first diet, the metabolic rate will increase more and more persistently, but this increase will gradually weaken until you start eating the next meal, and the thermal effect of food will show a "peak valley" state. In the third diet scheme, the increase of metabolic rate will be relatively small, but it will last, and the thermal effect of food will be relatively gentle. And the second diet plan is somewhere in between.
However, within 24 hours, there was no difference in food thermal effects among the three diet schemes. Eating frequency will not affect the total thermal effect of food. You can't trick your body into burning more or less calories by controlling the frequency of eating.
Myth: Fasting puts the body into hunger mode, thus reducing metabolism. In the difficult period of human evolution, effective adaptation to famine is very important for survival. Reducing metabolic rate when hungry can make us live longer and increase the possibility of encountering food. However, being "hungry" here doesn't mean not eating a meal. The idea that skipping meals or fasting for a short time will lead to a "hunger pattern" is actually ridiculous.
Looking at the existing scientific research, the earliest evidence shows that the decline of metabolic rate occurred after fasting for 60 hours (metabolic decline of 8%)5. Other studies show that the metabolic rate will not be affected until 72-96 hours later.
Paradoxically, short-term fasting may even increase metabolic rate. Relevant research data show that the metabolic rate increases by 3.6%- 10% after fasting for 36-48 hours. From an evolutionary point of view, this can also be explained clearly. Adrenaline and norepinephrine can sharpen our thinking, make us want to walk around, encourage us to look for food or hunt, and these behaviors will improve our chances of survival.
There are too many misunderstandings about fasting dinner and eating frequency, which may spread far and go deep into some people's hearts.