There were [no statistical] differences between the low- and high- [meal frequency] groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing meal frequency does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study.

Because of the massive amount of sugar that Americans eat on average, most people have become dependent on glucose, instead of fatty acids, for energy. Every supermarket, grocery store and coffee shop sells an abundance of sugary foods and drinks. When you eat a lot of sugar, and that sugar isn't utilized for energy, your body breaks it down and eventually stores it as body fat.


Yes — you read that correctly — 24 hours of intermittent fasting without any resistance training and these subjects were able to preserve more muscle mass than the subjects that ate fewer calories every day without fasting at all. This finding contradicts our common sense, but when we dig deeper into autophagy we can find the mechanism behind this result.

There are different types of intermittent fasting, but the most common involves only eating within a certain window of time each day. For example, you might only eat between 12pm and 6pm each day, giving you a 6-hour “feeding” window when you eat all of your calories for the day. That means you’ll be fasting for 18 hours in between. Your intermittent fasting ratio would then be 18/6.


Yes, by cutting out an entire meal each day, you are consuming fewer calories per week – even if your two meals per day are slightly bigger than before. Overall, you’re still consuming fewer calories per day. This is highlighted in a recent JAMA study[b] in which both calorie restricted dieters and intermittent fasters lost similar amounts of weight over a year period.
×