We've been known for our no carb left behind romps through Italy. Like this find of grainy pizza crust "senza formaggio" and piles of chopped fresh tomato we scored in Cinque Terra.

What do YOU do with appetite swings?

I just go with it.

Back in the old "count, weight, measure" days, we operated on the assumption that every day would be a match energetically and with appetite.  Know what I mean?

Sorry sister, ain't the truth in real life.  Our bodies have all kinds of reasons – most which we  probably know nothing about – for swinging our appetites.

And if we eliminated or seriously made a dent in the dastardly diet-slammers such as highly processed foods, rich pastries, desserts, fiber-free dairy, and other agents of sabotage to natural fullness, then we are free to go with the appetite flow without fear of weight gain.  Trust me.

Case in Point

If it brings confidence and comfort that it IS possible to eat according to hunger and fullness signals without gaining weight endlessly and forever – and to actually use it as an effective tool to keep you trim – Ill give you an example from my eating life.  Here is my food journal – best I can recall – from the past 2 days.

Yesterday

Breakfast:

• Big bowl of muesli with crispy rice cereal and flax seed, 2 kinds of peach and blueberries, splash of rice milk

Mid-morning:

• green plum.  Perfect

Lunch:

• pile of romaine with kidney beans
• sandwich with 2 slices of whole grain bread with thick chunks of tomato and pickles

Afternoon.  Nothing.  (Unusual!)

Dinner:

• giant ear of corn

Today:

Breakfast:

• Bowl of hot muesli, ground flax seed, fresh peaches, splash of rice milk.

Mid morning:

• plum

• nectarine

• rice cake with sesame butter, and
  

  Snapshot of today's tabouleh; from my upcoming FitFood Quickies Comford Food Cookbook

• several scoops of the tabouli salad I was making for lunch.  Yeah, it almost didn't make it.  To lunch.  The tabouleh I mean. Click HERE for my easy tabouleh recipe.

Lunch:

• pile of baby spinach with big scoop of tabouleh with garbanzos all over the top

• sandwich with 2 slices of whole grain bread with thick chunks of tomato and pickles

Afternoon:

• no hunger until dinner, as well satisfied in the morning

Dinner:

• corn on the cob

• cauliflower with veggie chorizo

• bruschetta of chopped tomato on wholegrain bread

Later:

• huge bowl of watermelon chunks

So, what's with the appetite shifts?

Who knows. Both days I took a long leisurely morning walk.

Yesterday I did my Bar Method workout after the walk.

Is it possible to nail the diet strategies that point to weight loss success, over and over again?

And by success, we're talking "lasting" weight loss.

A recent article in my International Dance and Exercise Association (IDEA) Journal revealed four commonalities among those who successfully lose weight  – and keep it off.

Yes, there are more than just four. But these four were featured as they stand out among from the rest as solid hallmarks of lasting weight loss success. Here are the findings as reported in the IDEA Journal.  Along with my points and counterpoints from years and years of experience coaching women to successful, lasting, life-friendly (make no mistake, VERY important!) weight loss.

4 Things People Who Lose Weight And Keep It Off Have In Common

1)  They Monitor Their Weight and Track Their Food Intake

Weighing yourself regularly, as previously reported here in Does Monitoring Your Weight Help With Weight Loss, helps you stay on top of the numbers – and your weight.  No more room for denial!  They also had a habit of jotting down records of what they were eating.

My  points and counterpoints: If you are "afraid" of the scale, get over it.  And don't fool yourself into thinking an 8 lb gain in a month is "solid muscle".  It's darn hard to pack on even 2 – 3 lbs of muscle in that much time, and that's with a very muscle – challenging workload.  Yes, weight will shift with hydration and macronutrient content, but overall, and noted once or twice a week, can tell you the trends.  Also, keeping a food journal – even intermittently – helps you keep a reality check on food intake.

2)  They Eat 4, 5 Or More Meals Throughout The Day

When and how often one eats may determine weight. Studies show that eating four or five small meals/snacks throughout the day is associated with lower energy intake and reduced or no obesity risk, and eating less or more than this may actually increase the risk of obesity (Forslund et al. 2005; Ma et al. 2003). In addition, skipping breakfast is associated with a higher body mass index and increased obesity risk (Ma et al. 2003; Choet al. 2003).

My points and counterpoints: You may be getting the message from media that we should go hours and hours between meals to keep insulin in check.  Insulin is released when we eat – it's how our body's way to process the incoming energy, shuttling it into storage for use.  Thus, the popular idea is that by keeping insulin out of the game during several hours, glucagon kicks in and we start "burning" stored fat.

But that's only part of the picture. Large meals overstimulate the release of insulin, creating all kinds of problems, bodyfat storage, and insulin resistance.  If you're not supposed to eat for 5 – 6 hours between meals, how the heck can one not eat a large meal?  It builds in an entirely new problem!

When you eat whole, real foods, you can trust your body to eat the right amounts to keep you slim.  Just like the squirrels outside my office.

3)  Portions Are Controlled

My clients prove that you can eat all you want with a balance of high fiber starches, vegetables, legumes, and fruits, and lose weight - without hunger

My points and counterpoints: Portion control is just another way of saying reduced calories.  This can be done in one of 2 ways:

• by weighing and measuring. However, with a Standard American Diet IMPOSSIBLE to sustain without hunger.  Minimal long term success.  Not recommended if you want to satisfy hunger.
  
• by body-controlled portions. This is what I do, and it's kept those extra 50 lbs off of me for 12 years now. It's easy to achieve when you are eating whole, real, low fat foods, because the bulk, calorie density, and satiety do the work for you.  Your body can totally be your guide on portion control when you eat in this fashion.  This is the approach that I successfully coach women with in my Booty Camps and FitDream Fusion Membership.

4) They Fill Up On Less

Increasing intake of nutrient-rich foods like fruits and vegetables is a positive strategy for controlling portions. Studies show that reducing energy density by boosting intake of low-caloric- density foods is associated with weight loss and improved diet quality (Ello-Martin et al. 2007; Ledikwe et al. 2007). Thanks to water and fiber, low-caloric-density foods offer larger portions with fewer calories, so you fill up without filling out. Examples include fruits, vegetables, beans and soups. High-fiber foods also slow digestion and absorption and stabilize blood sugar, which helps control hunger and further aids weight loss. (McCreary, Beyond Energy Balance, 2010)

My points and counter points: This is exactly what I'm talking about with body-controlled eating (see #3 above). It has been found that adding certain foods  helps people lose and maintain weight loss, AND feel satisfied physically -and emotionally – satisfied. For example, by implementing this crucial strategy,  study participants report consuming more food by weight, while reducing energy intake (Ledikwe et al. 2007).

And guess what?! They also report feeling less hungry (Ello-Martin et al. 2007) which is essential to long-term weight management.  You can't fight the hunger urge.  Don't even try. And in this study, the strongest correlation to weight loss was lower calorie density coupled with increased dietary fiber.  See My Big Plate Trick for Staying Slim.

In a nutshell? High fiber + low fat + careful observation of compliance + body-controlled eating = sustained weight and fat loss.  They all go together.

© Lani Muelrath All Rights Reserved image:  stayhealthier

The responses have been as varied and rich as the women themselves;  which of these women's responses featured do YOU relate to best?

Or are you  a whole different animal altogether?

First, from "Moon's" blog:

YES! Today has ended wonderfully.

It was awful driving home in the snow and I was dreading driving to workout with a client friend but my husband offered to drop me off and pick me up…so sweet of him.

The workout was great and exactly what I needed.

Then I read this article http://thetruthaboutfatlossforwomen.com/2009/01/27/mini-meals-metabolic-rates-fact-or-fitness-myth/

That made me happy because I feel bombarded by mini meal information and it conflicts with the Eat to Live approach to eating…ahhhh i am so relieved

Thank you Lani for doing the research and clearing that up! While you're there subscribe to her e-zine…it has great information and so does her blog.

Quoted from  "Moon's" blog here:  Moon's Corner: Operation Cleanup

Carrie had a different response:

Hi Lani-

More wonderful 'Food for Thought' here!

I read your post with great interest- as I started implementing the concept of mini meals in my own life three months ago, and through doing so, melted off-rather effortlessly and to my profound joy- the 18 pounds that had accumulated over the last three years.

The results have been amazing for me- and my Mom, though in thinking about the whys and hows of the results, I have a different theory as to why mini meals bring about the rather amazing weight loss results they do for many women.

My problem has been hypoglycemia-exacerbated by peri menopause and exhausted adrenal glands.
By eating mini meals, I've been able to regulate my blood sugar levels, and thus rest my over-worked adrenals-which has led me to lose that fatty layer around the middle that so often accumulates due to spiking cortisol levels.
I also have felt that by implementing smaller meals more often, my body has become more efficient in handling digestion, etc.
My Mom has experienced the same phenomenon.

I'm sure you are quite correct re: the metabolism theory but this blood sugar/adrenal concept just might be something to consider when debating this issue further.
The Adrenals play a huge role in women's health and I think are often so very overlooked, and underestimated.

Just a thought! Keep up the great work!
Your friend and fan,
Carrie Pierce, "Comments"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And from Stephanie, in "Comments" as well:

Hey Lani, I am really appreciating this discussion because I'm so tired of going around and around about the meal timing thing in my head!

It is a big relief to me to know that paying attention to what I include in my diet every day is more important than when I eat it. For this I thank you!

Steph

One more, from Sheena, on a different note than Steph:

I really appreciate this article. It makes so much sense.

I myself have to control my insulin levels due to the fact that I am PCOS and Insulin Resistance. Reading this article made me understand the importance of the mini meals.

I have to be honest, I haven't really tried this method of meal planning, although I have been informed about it. This article however goes into details, about increasing metabolism, younger children eating smaller frequent meals, and of course the insulin control. I'm going to plan smaller frequent meals ASAP. Thank you for sharing this article with us Lani.

Sheena, "Comments"

More comments in my aresenal, this however represents a good diversity of responses.

Where do YOU stand on "mini vs. 3 squares" or any variation thereof?

]]> http://thetruthaboutfatlossforwomen.com/2009/02/03/mini-meals-some-reader-responses/feed/ 1 http://thetruthaboutfatlossforwomen.com/2009/02/01/6-reasons-mini-meals-might-work-for-you/ http://thetruthaboutfatlossforwomen.com/2009/02/01/6-reasons-mini-meals-might-work-for-you/#comments Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:38:05 +0000 Lani Muelrath http://thetruthaboutfatlossforwomen.com/?p=566 OK.  It's already been established that eating Mini-Meals, or spreading your caloric intake out over several eating events during the day, does not impact metabolic rate or on its own burn more calories than fewer meals eaten over the course of the day.

More on 6 Reasons Mini-Meals Might Work For You

OK, it's time to shatter another fitness myth.

Just this week, I got another one of those newsletters from a "fitness expert" with the following headline:

"Mini Meals To Speed Up Your Metabolism" which included this content:

Have you heard that in order to SPEED UP your metabolism, you should be eating MORE OFTEN? …by eating every 2 or 3 hours… your metabolism is FIRED UP to it's highest speed)…

No doubt you have heard this same information from multiple directions for years.

But is there truth to this which has now become "conventional fat loss wisdom"?

Or is it a fitness myth waiting to be broken through for information we can really use?

Here's My Question:

Do mini-meals fire up your "metabolism" (we should use the term "metabolic rate" anyway – "metabolism" is really so vague a term, even though it pushes all kinds of hot buttons).

Let's put it another way – if you are trying to "recomposition" your body to have a lower fat-to-muscle ratio, is it an advantageous practice to spread your meals for the day out to multiple "mini-feeds"?

Do  5 – 6 or more mini meals a day increase your metabolic rate as opposed to fewer meals per day of larger size each?

I've been researching the professional journals and papers for a several weeks and am ready to report in on my findings.

I'm taking a deep breath and am ready to launch!

This may be a bit lengthy, and is guaranteed to include some egghead sections (research abstract excerpts), so pop on your specs, grab a glass of your favorite hot (or cold) drink, and settle in.

What I Found Out

Perhaps the most significant journal paper I came across is a study on reported in the British Journal of Nutrition. This paper reviews "the epidemiological studies relating meal frequency to body weight, and attempts to integrate these with the results of physiological investigations on meal frequency and energy balance".

Simply put, this study investigates the question: is there evidence to support the prescription of multiple small meals daily as opposed to fewer, larger meals when it comes to inspiring a metabolic rate response that would impact weight? One of the strengths of this study is that it entails a review of the literature and results available from multiple studies.

[Reference: Bellisle F et. al. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. (1997) 77 (Suppl 1):S57-70.]

Guess what?  Over a 24 hour period, apparently there IS no difference.

So, Why Do I Keep Getting Those Emails From "Pros" About Mini-Meals and Optimal "Metabolism"?

OK, maybe you keep getting these too.

If not, I'm sure you see them all over the web, in the news, and repeated-as-mantra from many corners of the fitness universe.

Frankly, I used to say it too.

But as I started getting more and more fired up about looking behind many of these commonly-held beliefs in my quest to find the simple truths that really are going to serve us – or not.

It is not hard to figure out how the mini-meals-and-metabolism ball got started on its roll.

You see, there actually IS a phenomenon called "Thermogenic Effect of Feeding" (TEF – yes, it even has its own official acronym).  There IS a thermogenic – or heat producing (translation:  stimulated metabolic rate) effect every time you eat.  The extrapolation from this has been, well, then eat more often, get more thermogenic stimulation, right?

Not so fast.

According to the research, there is also a GREATER thermogenic effect from larger meals.  If you take the 2, smaller minis and fewer larger (in the research they are referred to as "nibble" and "gorge"), over a 24 hour period there is no difference of thermogenic effect.  The larger meals have a HIGHER overall thermogenic stimulating effect, the mini-meals have a smaller, though more frequent effect.  As a matter of fact, overnight metabolic rate induction from fewer larger meals was strong.

Evidently it all comes out the same in the wash.

A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral.

More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency.

We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are liely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.

Interestingly, in studies (as reported in the same paper) report an inverse relationship between "nibbling" and reduced body fat, there were multiple other influences that mitigated the findings, i.e physical activity, smoking status, alcohol intake, meal under-reporting)

The above review paper examined not only earlier observational work but also direct studies of varying meal frequency on either metabolic rate or weight loss. With the exception of one poorly done study, no connection found between varying meal frequency and any of the examined parameters.

No increase in weight loss, no relative overall increase in metabolic rate, no nothing.  Nada.  Zip.

They concluded that earlier studies finding an effect of meal frequency on weight gain (or loss) had more to do with changes in appetite or food intake, not from any direct impact on metabolic rate.

For example, early observational studies discovered that people who skipped breakfast were heavier and this still resonates with conventional thought today idea that skipping breakfast makes you fatter. The review points out that this may be confusing cause and effect: people often start skipping meals to lose weight.

Then Why Have We Gotten The "Mini-Meal Metabolism" Story For So Long?

My answer to this is partly conjecture, partly supported by the scientific papers.  Let's go with the scientifically supported first.

It is very difficult to monitor human subjects over a 24 hour period.  Thus, monitoring effects of smaller meals, more frequently, has been a "friendlier" process, from a research point of view.

Second, marketing madness, I suspect, has played a big role here.  What better opportunity for snack food companies, energy bar moguls, between-meal-shake folks, bodybuiding supplement companies, and every one else who wants us to buy their edibles?

(An interesting anecdote from my friend Brad Pilon, who researched meal timing metabolism extensively for his work Eat Stop Eat:  Brad worked for several years in the food-supplement-for-body-builders industry and will be the first to tell you that one of their key marketing tools was to hook this what I call "partial information". More on Eat Stop Eat in 5 Reasons To Try Mini Fasts and Mini-Fasts:  My 4 Month Report)

Am I Telling You To STOP The Mini Meal Schedule?

Of course not.

If you like the rhythm, and it suits your needs and is successful for you for a variety of reasons, do what works for you!

As a matter of fact, there ARE some reasons and circumstances in which mini meals may be the best choice, unrelated to TEF; that's the topic for another article.

But if you are doing the mini-meal routine because you understand that it provides advantageous metabolic rate boost, there just isn't the scientific evidence to support it.

© Lani Muelrath

What is your favorite eating rhythm?  What have you found works for you best?  Comments section below.