Episode Transcript

Metabolism Myths
Episode 31: February 18, 2009

Hello there! This is Monica Reinagel, the Nutrition Diva. The topic for today’s show was inspired by a comment that was posted on Twitter the other day by new media guru Jason van Orden. Jason wrote that he was trying to eat every two and a half or three hours without fail in order to keep his metabolism burning.

The idea that going too long without eating will cause your metabolism to shut down is a very popular notion. As I told Jason, it’s also pretty much hooey.

Now, it’s recently come to my attention that listeners of the Nutrition Diva podcast are using the information in these shows to correct their co-workers, spouses, and even perfect strangers on nutritional matters. All I can say is, “Keep up the good work.” There is a lot of nutrition nonsense in the world. Together, we can make a difference! And this week, you’ve got your work cut out for you.

I’m not sure who first promoted this idea that eating several small meals a day would promote weight loss by stoking your metabolism but it has quickly become dietary dogma. I think one of the reasons that it has become so widely accepted is that people haul out some very scientific-sounding explanations that seem, well, very scientific and, therefore, believable.

There are two basic arguments and we’ll tackle them one at a time.

Going into power-saving mode
 
The first goes like this: your body, when deprived of food for a period of time, will go into “starvation mode.”   This is when the body burns fewer calories in order to conserve energy, just in case the food shortage continues. During a famine, you’d need to live on your stored fat. Down-regulating your metabolism is a way to make those fat stores go a bit further.
 
It’s similar to the way your laptop adjusts its energy usage when it’s running on batteries, by making the screen a little dimmer, for example. When food is plentiful again, your metabolism goes back to normal, just the way your screen gets brighter when you plug your laptop back in.
 
If there were actually a famine, you’d be glad that your body is designed this way. But, if you’re trying to lose weight, the last thing you want is increased fuel efficiency. You wantto be burning through stored fat like an Escalade burns through a tank of gas. So, the trick is to reassure your body that there is no shortage of food by eating every few hours. Your body will oblige you by continuing to burn calories with reckless metabolic abandon. Or so the story goes.
 
It makes sense, doesn’t it? And, it’s sort of true. Your body does respond to a prolonged fast by slowing your metabolism to conserve energy. Here’s the thing, though: your body doesn’t go into starvation mode if you go four hours without food. In fact, it takes about three days of fasting or serious caloric restriction for your body to respond with any sort of metabolic adjustment.
 
The cost of doing business
 
The second argument, which sounds even more technical and is, therefore, even more impressive, has to do with something called the thermic effect of food. This is a term that scientists use to describe the energy that your body expends releasing energy from your food.
 
Think of it as a sort of transaction tax that your body charges you to convert the energy in your food into a form of energy your cells can use. If meal contains 300 calories worth of food energy, converting that food energy into cellular energy might use up 30 calories or so. So you’d end up with just 270 calories worth of energy when it’s all over. It’s a little like changing money in a foreign country. In order to convert your dollars into euros, you have to pay the money-changer a fee.
 
Some people have interpreted this to mean that if your body is constantly in the process of digesting food, it will constantly be burning calories (via the thermic effect of food) and that if you go too long between meals, you will be missing out on this calorie-burning opportunity.
Bosh! Just like at the money-changer, the fee to exchange food energy into body energy is simply a percentage of how much you’re changing. It doesn’t matter whether you exchange all your money in one lump sum at the beginning of your trip or change small amounts of money three times a day. The fees will be based on how much money you convert. And the thermic effect of food is based on how much you eat, not when you eat it.
 
The bottom line
 
There’s nothing wrong with eating six small meals a day instead of the traditional three-square. Some people find this works better for them. For example, you may find that you make better dietary choices if you don’t let yourself get as hungry between meals. But rest assured that going 4—or even 12—hours between meals will have virtually no effect on your metabolism.
 
It’s also not necessary to eat every few hours in order to keep your blood sugar steady. In fact, spacing your meals out more can have some very beneficial effects on your blood sugar and on other aspects of your health, as well. I’ll talk about these in next week’s show.
 
 
Administrative 
 
This is Monica Reinagel with your quick and dirty tips for eating well and feeling fabulous. 
 
Visit nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com for a transcript of this episode, along with links to some research on the effects of meal frequency on metabolism, which you can reference next time you’re called upon to set the record straight. If you have a nutrition question for me, send an e-mail to nutrition@quickanddirtytips.com or leave me a voice mail at 206-203-1438.  Or, send me a tweet on Twitter!
 
Don’t forget that you can get the Nutrition Diva and other great Quick and Dirty Tips podcasts streamed right to your iPhone with a free program called Stitcher. Check it out at Stitcher.com.
 
Have a great day and eat something good for me!
 
RESOURCES: 
 
intakes of energy (Scholarly article in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition)
 
Eating more meals does not increase your metabolism (Good summary of research in lay-friendly terms)

Comments (23) for Metabolism Myths |  Subscribe to Comment

Nutrition Diva Says:
9/28/2009 11:42:44 AM
@Evenstarlet'13 As I note in the episode "it takes about three days of fasting or serious caloric restriction for your body to respond with any sort of metabolic adjustment."
Evenstarlet'13 Says:
9/27/2009 2:48:34 AM
Does fasting every other day slow your metabolism down? If so, how well would exercise counter the metabolism-slowing? Thanks!!
Tony Campione Says:
9/24/2009 1:03:06 PM
I am a type 2 diabetic. Could you please explain why if after app. 5 hours without injesting any food you feel hungry, and after another hour or so, you no longer feel the hunger? Further more why if I take my Gluc. reading at app. 4 to 5 hrs. after a meal, the reading would be a 5 or possibly a 4 mmol/L M, yet not eating and repeating a blood test app. one or two hrs. afterwards, and the results are now 6 or possibly 7 mmol/L M. Very important inf. for Diabetics.
Kate Says:
7/7/2009 8:49:03 PM
Eating five or six times a day is indeed a very popular dieting at the minute. I agree that it can actually make a difference to people who used to eat huge portions of food as eating more often makes them feel fuller and therefore less hungry, but it has nothing to do with metabolism.
Luke Says:
6/11/2009 2:36:43 PM
Wow, if it is true that meal frequency has no effect on metabolic rate than this is the most enlightening podcast I've heard on this whole site! I have read countless diet/weight loss books and I don't remember a single instance where it wasn't stressed that you should eat 5 or more meals per day for the best metabolism. I can't believe how pervasive this misinformation is if it is incorrect!
Nutrition Diva Says:
2/24/2009 9:32:09 AM
Matt, you guess correctly.
Marcia Says:
2/23/2009 3:58:55 PM
Thank you for your response Monica!
Matt Says:
2/23/2009 8:07:39 AM
Monica, thanks for this podcast. As friend of mine who is a personal trainer had told me that if you don't consume 150 calories within an hour and a half of waking up your body would go into starvation mode and turn all subsequent calories directly into fat. After hearing your podcast I'm guessing that this is also a myth? Thanks!
Nutrition Diva Says:
2/21/2009 10:22:40 AM
Lieber Klaus, There is some very interesting research on the beneficial effects of Ramadan fasting practices. For example, it appears to improve blood sugar levels! (That's a hint for next week's show). Alles gut! Monica
Klaus Heck Says:
2/21/2009 10:00:15 AM
Hi, I want to tell you about my „ramadan-diet”, which helps me to lose 40 kg and to hold my weight for now 10 years or so: I just eat Dinner (because, Dinner is, what I like most). In the good (bad) old times, I forced myself into breakfast, because I learned, that breakfast is most important for a healthy life. In Germany (where I come from, besides: sorry for my poor English) we have this old saw: "Eat in the morning like an emperor, at noon like a king and in the night like a beggar". This was so wrong for me! My email is not anno... but 2009@kheck.info. Your program say "E-Mail Address is invalid" No! It isn't ;-)
Nutrition Diva Says:
2/21/2009 8:39:22 AM
Duder, I think the research posted in the show notes does actually substantiate the only claim I'm making here, which is that going longer between meals does not affect your metabolic rate. However, as I also point out in the show, eating more frequently is a useful tool for some people because they find that they make better nutritional choices when they don't get as hungry between meals. This has nothing to do with metabolism. So, I think we are in agreement on that point. But so often, behavioral tools like eating more frequently or not eating after a certain point in the evening are supported by incorrect ideas about how the body works--that's what I'm trying to clear up here. Thanks for weighing in!
Nutrition Diva Says:
2/21/2009 8:33:02 AM
Soren, sorry my attempt at a little humor in the episode rubbed you the wrong way. I agree with you: There's nothing worse than getting advice when none is desired. Even as a professional nutritionist, I never comment on what friends or family choose to eat (unless they ask my advice). But I do speak up when people state things that I believe are misinformed, offering my reasons to believing otherwise. People certainly feel free to spreading nutrition myths. So, I think its ok to spread a little nutrition truth--as long as its done respectfully, of course.
Nutrition Diva Says:
2/21/2009 8:26:47 AM
Marcia, as I mention in the podcast, dramatically reducing your caloric intake for more than a day or two can cause your body to compensate by down-regulating the metabolism. So, depending on your size, eating 1200 calories a day on an ongoing basis may indeed cause your metabolism to slow down. My point in this episode was that going for several hours without food will not. Some research shows that alternating low and high calorie days can be a way to restrict calories for weight loss without the down-shift in metabolism. So, for example, eating 1200 calories one day and 1600 or 1800 the next, and so on.
Duder17 Says:
2/19/2009 10:09:40 PM
Monica fails to substantiate her claim. No, the body doesn't dramatically drop into starvation mode when it doesn't get food in a few hours, but eating more often goes a long way towards hunger management. More frequent meals is often a key tool in helping people maintain/loose weight, and it's indisputably effective. It should not be dismissed in this fashion. Everyone, please research this issue more thoroughly before taking the advice in this podcast. What Monica is failing to understand is that maintaining or losing weight is often about hunger management. By
Lori Says:
2/19/2009 8:05:29 PM
Thank you for this- I've always felt better if I can manage two larger meals: one mid-morning and then late afternoon with a possible snack in the evening. I sleep better and have more energy during the day. I tried to eat small meals/snacks throughout the day and found that it just made me feel sluggish and thick and hungrier all the time. I became focused on food rather than whatever else I was needing to do. I actually like to feel slightly hungry and this is how I've managed to maintain my weight for so long. Blood sugar is another issue though and does trip me up sometimes; I'll be interested to hear the next podcast.
Soren Says:
2/19/2009 6:01:05 PM
I was really surprised to hear you say that it's appropriate to inform friends, family members, and even strangers (!) of how their dietary practices are in error. Why not even a caveat about how it's often inappropriate and irritating? I would gladly share info if I thought it was welcome, but if some self-righteous know-it-all tried to impose on me the knowledge they picked up in a casual nutrition podcast, I'd find it inappropriate. Better to let people come to knowledge themselves, perhaps providing them with some very subtle hints. Your approach is as welcome as a Jehovah's witness at my door at 7am on a Saturday morning.
Carollyne Says:
2/19/2009 5:25:07 PM
Good
Olivia Says:
2/19/2009 3:19:32 PM
Top Ramen is the disgusting dried packaged noodles.
Marcia Says:
2/19/2009 2:20:15 PM
Based on your podcast, may I assume that the statement "women have to eat 1200 calories a day or it slows their metabolism" is false? Thank you!
Nutrition Diva Says:
2/19/2009 12:35:32 PM
Jesica, as you heard in today's episode, going six of seven hours without eating will not affect your metabolism. However, studies do show that kids concentrate and learn better if they have a nutritious breakfast before school. (What on earth is Topramen?)
Jason Van Orden Says:
2/18/2009 4:58:12 PM
Thanks for the great episode. As usual, it was very helpful.
Jesica Says:
2/18/2009 4:01:09 PM
Hi Monica! I love your podcast! I work for UCSD on a nutrition program with adolescents and a lot of your info is very useful. In regards to metabolism, we are finding that a lot teens are not eating anything during school on a daily basis. They eat breakfast (usually something unhealthy like Topramen) and then will eat some small junk food item at school or will just not eat anything at all during school hours. When I go over metabolism with them, I explain to them that over a period of time, it is not good to go 6 or 7 hours without eating anything because it slows down their metabolism. Is that correct?
jj Says:
2/18/2009 3:58:26 PM
This may also have come to popular belief as some celebrities practice it - i.e. Oprah.

Add Comment

 *
 *
 *
  Image to deter spam submissions
  To deter spam submissions, please type the letters from the image into the box below:
 *
 
  Fields marked with "*" are required