It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is Eating One Meal a Day Healthier?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:18 PM
My studies and personal experiments makes me not fully support the calorie theory.

Fasting actually increases metabolism, because it releases the hormon glucagon, and keeps insulin at bay, thus burning fat stores, long term, it releases ketones, which preserves lean muscle mass, so one would not go into starvation.

Most of what is generally believed, is not based on science.
Intermittent fasting has been through many experiments, and one does not lower metabolism, one does not enter "starvation mode"(which I believe is a myth, as only when the fat deposits are used, does the body break down lean tissue). The body is highly adaptive and will fuction to survive.

And, it's the fasted time that makes this work, it has nothing to do with calories, and little to do with what is consumed. The fasted time aftects hormones, which affect the body/mind health more than anything.

Of course humans are not rodents, but in a rodent study, one set could eat all day whenever they wanted, and the other set was fed every other day. The EOD set had like double life span, better insulin response, higher immunity, and lower tendency for alzheimers. I don't recall the jargon, but this study is easy to find on a search.

And then, humans that do this, are finding so many benifts, be it control of blood sugar, greater protein untilization, weight regulation, etc.

I've been doing this now for 3 days, and I feel so much better.

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by tom502

Thanks again for your input, Tom502. I'm still researching, but I think I will give it a try to see how my body responds. I just will have to deal with my body asking for food, as it is used to being fed when it wants food. I suppose once I'm over that hurdle I can manage it. Best of luck! And please continue to update us with your results as you go.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Abrihetx because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:31 PM

Originally posted by tom502
My studies and personal experiments makes me not fully support the calorie theory.

Fasting actually increases metabolism, because it releases the hormon glucagon, and keeps insulin at bay, thus burning fat stores, long term, it releases ketones, which preserves lean muscle mass, so one would not go into starvation.

All of that is true except: A) Fasting, and restricting calories, slows the metabolic rate, B) muscle mass would be preserved if physical activity is kept low, if glycogen levels are fully stored and if the fasting is relatively short in duration. Otherwise, eventually, the brain will need glucose from somewhere...and when liver glycogen stores are depleted, the muscles are next (gluconeogenesis).

Other than that, you're on the right path. Check out this thread of mine, and many of others I've authored:

Also, to address the OP:

Eating occasionally (EO) was not independently associated with increased satiety. It was only when higher protein was consumed that any effect was observed. I'm sure we all know the relationship that exists between satiety (hunger) and obesity.

The idea of "grazing", or eating 4-8 small meals throughout the day, is retarded. We're not gorillas; and we're not cattle.

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:41 PM
This from this website:

I think it makes sense.

Fat Burning and Weight Loss Myth #2
Won’t Fasting Slow Your Metabolism?
Why Your Fat Burning Metabolism “Speeds Up” When You Fast
Once again this question from one of our readers …

Just read your letter “Energy That Is Stored -Must Be Utilized.” Won’t fasting slow your metabolic rate? Doesn’t your body think you’re starving when you fast and slow down to conserve energy? If not, why are so many of the latest diets centered around several small meals a day instead of 3 square meals?

Which “metabolic rate” are we talking about?

The human body has many “metabolic rates.” In Stryer “Biochemistry” there are 344 pages on metabolism including twenty-eight pages devoted to Biosynthesis of Membrane Lipids and Steroids, twenty-six pages devoted to the “metabolism” of amino acids, twenty-four pages devoted to the biosynthesis of nucleotides and another twenty-three pages devoted to integration and regulation of metabolism.

A single bacterial cell such as Escherichia Coli has well over one-thousand metabolic reactions. While there are many “metabolisms” or “metabolic rates” we could study, for the purpose of this article we will limit the discussion to the first job that our metabolism must accomplish -provide energy to keep us alive and mobile. This also happens to be the area of interest in the question at the start of this article.

Energy Metabolism

The human body has evolved because of a rather elegant biochemistry of energy metabolism. There are times when we must utilize energy and there are times when we need to store energy. Without the ability to do both of these, the human would not have evolved. Man needed to utilize energy to obtain food that would eventually be stored. This stored energy would later be called upon to provide energy to obtain more food. As man evolved it was not uncommon to have several days between meals. Human metabolism had the amazing ability to provide energy to keep man alive during periods of starvation and it has not changed since then. The only real change is that man now seldom if ever goes two or three hours between meals, much less two or three days.

the biochemical pathways of energy storage and utilization are distinct

“An important general principle of metabolism is that biosynthetic and degradative pathways are almost always distinct.” (p456 Stryer Biochemistry)

Therefore we have the metabolism of energy storage (anabolism) … and the metabolism of energy utilization (catabolism) as separate biochemical entities. The relevance to the above question is now apparent -are we talking about the metabolism of energy utilization or the metabolism of energy storage?

Won’t fasting slow your metabolic rate?

What does the body do when we fast? In order to understand this we need to take a brief look at how the body regulates our metabolism so that we can go days without food -the hormonal system of insulin and glucagon. Insulin is the hormone that facilitates entry of glucose into our cells. Glucagon is the hormone that facilitates the utilization of the stored energy (glucose, glycogen etc). When we eat, insulin is secreted into our bloodstream to allow entry of the glucose into the liver, muscle and fat where insulin also acts to promote storage of this glucose as glycogen in the liver and muscle and as triacylglycerols (fat) in the fat cells. About two to four hours after eating the insulin levels drop and the glucagon levels rise. This reverses the effects of insulin and mobilizes glucose by degrading the glycogen in the liver and muscle and the triacylglycerols in fat.

The “teeter-totter” of human energy metabolism

As one goes up, the other goes down. As insulin levels rise, glucagon levels decrease. As insulin levels decrease, glucagon levels rise. It is very important to understand that human biochemistry does not like to store energy at the same time it is utilizing it. Or, if one looks at ATP/ADP/AMP which is the “currency” of energy metabolism we find the same. As ATP (energy rich donor) levels rise the AMP and ADP levels decrease. When the energy charge is high the levels of ADP and AMP are low. When the energy charge is low, the levels of ADP and AMP are high. Not that you need to understand ATP/ADP/AMP metabolism but they are mentioned only to reinforce the concept that this is a yin/yang or teeter-totter effect. As one goes up the other goes down.

The Answer

Now you can answer the question. What happens when we starve? Insulin levels go down, glucagon levels go up. This is BASIC human biochemistry. When glucagon levels go up what happens -the human body utilizes, not stores energy. The “metabolism” / “metabolic rate” of energy utilization goes up! It does not go down as there is NO way for it to go down. What does go down? The “metabolism” or “metabolic rate” of energy storage.

Eating Multiple Small Meals

Now that you understand some of the hormonal control of your metabolism, it is easy to see why eating multiple small meals is a recipe for morbid obesity. There is no way to eat multiple meals without elevating your serum insulin levels. You end up spending your whole day / life in the insulin “fed” state. This effectively prevents utilization of stored energy. What happens when you don’t utilize what you have stored … you get fat!

Lubert Stryer Biochemistry Fourth Edition
The Metabolism of Weight Loss J. Mericle M.D.

Thanks for your attention.

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:27 PM
I've been hearing this quite often lately. Also, this guy only eats once a day and he's in his late 40s...

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:54 PM
reply to post by tom502

It does make sense. But it's a bit misleading.

When the body isn't getting enough exogenous fuel, through starvation, fasting or extreme dieting, the body compensates by burning less fuel. Body temperature drops, random movements stop and "laziness" and lethargy (lack of energy) set in. That doesn't mean less fat is burned. In fact, just the opposite is true. Fat from fat cells becomes the primary source of fuel. Weight is lost regardless of the metabolic rate because ALL, or most, of the full is indogenous. And since there is no energy input...well, you get the picture.

It's the same reason why obese individuals stay hungry despite consuming copious amounts of food. Most of the fuel is locked in the fat cells keeping the calories from the parts that need it. The result is a lowered metabolic rate and hunger...and laziness.

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:12 AM
reply to post by Abrihetx

To lose weight or simply be healthy, you should always attempt to eat three meals per day; Breakfast, Dinner and Tea.

I've never been a Breakfast person (apart from when I was training and forced the food down my neck each morning) but when I was younger although I didn't eat Breakfast I used to eat supper so for me it was Dinner, Tea and Supper - which is still three meals.

Eating the three main meals throughout the day and snacking in between is the usual way most people eat, you could always reduce the portion size of the main meals and increase the size of the snacks in between to keep your metabolism ticking over.

As someone else has mentioned, rather than being focused on how often you eat, pay more attention to what you eat.

No ones going to lose weight eating a fry up for breakfast, a KFC for dinner and steak & chips for tea especially if they snack in between on a mars bar, packet of crisps and can of Coke

Find what works for you, personally my life style and job don't allow me to eat as I would like to (although I'm no trying as hard as I should do) but I generally eat when I'm hungry and I'm still here...for the time being.

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by tom502

That's crap, complete crap.

I'd agree with it if said human being didn't move a muscle all day and was fed the multiple meals.

There is no mention of physical activity in that research which is fundamentally wrong.

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:06 AM
i eat one meal per day with some pecking and "grazing" though out the day. i work in a kitchen so im around food all the time and has show me that people in 1st world countries are way to over fed. it makes me feel great most of the time. and sometimes i know when im at my limit and i need to eat something. its not for everyone but i find it works for me.

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:18 AM
I only eat once a day, and have for my entire adult life, but it is natural to me. Not forced. Listen to your body.
If things start going amuck, having little "weak spells", or something during the day, then your body is telling you it needs something.

If I want something during the day, it's usually a few walnuts, or a piece of fruit. I do well with pears and grapes.

Then at night, I eat a meal. If it's not nutritious, I swallow a few vitamins afterwards.

It works for me, but my body won't have it any other way. Food during the day time makes me extremely sleepy and sluggish. If I have a big lunch, I might as well call it a day. Which I do sometimes, just to be sociable.

People's bodies are different in this regard. The important thing is to be aware of when your body needs something, as opposed to your eating for emotional comfort. And yeah, I'm thin, but not undernourished.

edit on 7/13/2011 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:22 AM
Sorry, but the idea of "listening to your body" is a good way to perpetuate a problem. If you're metabolism is broken and you begin eating healthily (say you're a type 2 diabetic and you cut back on the carbohydrates), of course you're going to feel weak at first...that's because you're body has gotten used to a constantly supply of glucose. Take that constant supply away and the body has to get used to burning more fat instead.

Tell a drug addict to listen to his body when he/she stops their daily regimen and see how that works for them...

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in