18 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

Ok, something that I have wondered about for awhile, but have never asked anyone about is this: People always say when you are trying to lose weight, you should eat more small meals per day as opposed to less big meals per day, but the only thing is, people say the exact same thing for people trying to gain weight. For instance, this and this site say you should eat more meals of less size to lose weight, but this and this site say that you should do that to gain weight. (note: these were just some of the first one's that came up on Google, but I had heard this both ways before from others)

So, which is it? ...and can nutritionists quit being so confusing, please.

[Kalepha]

Nate, six-meal frequency may help you either lose or gain, depending on what and how much you consume and the types of exercising you do. Generally, when you want to lose, you'll be consuming on average of 1,000 calories fewer than what you would if you wanted to gain. Losing also entails aerobics and moderate weight training. Gaining would entail a little less aerobics and more weight training. Aerobics, basically, is getting your heart rate up to 65%-85% (about 75% is usually fine) of your heart rate max (approx. 220 – age) for sufficient durations for sufficient frequencies (ideally, 30-45 minutes twice daily, every day). Weight training, basically, is doing non-foolish resistance training. In any case, six meals daily is optimal, whatever you do, perhaps until we have better alternatives (depending on goals, of course).

[Live Forever]

So, I guess the message is to eat regular sized meals only if you want to stay at the same weight.

[Shepard]

Gain weight = consume more Calories than you expend
Lose weight = consume less Calories than you expend

Meal frequency doesn't mean much for weight gain/loss. I don't think 6 meals/day is necessarily optimal for everybody/anybody. The idea behind more frequent & smaller meals is better blood sugar control. But, that isn't quite so important for healthy people that are eating correctly, anyway.

Nate, losing/gaining weight doesn't require aerobics nor weight training. Also, the 1,000 Calorie less per day is going to depend on many factors. For some people it is fine, for others it is too much/little.

[Kalepha]

So, I guess the message is to eat regular sized meals only if you want to stay at the same weight.

Yes. If you happen to monitor your weight, perhaps weekly, you might adjust your portions accordingly. Keep in mind that body composition may vary within the same weight. But by the above response, now I'm uncertain whether this concerns you or not.

Nate, losing/gaining weight doesn't require aerobics nor weight training.

Technically true. It was assumed that anyone who wondered or cared would want to be pointed in a fruitful direction. It is obvious enough that if one wants to lose weight, one could simply starve oneself, and if one wants to gain weight, one could simply lay around and eat all day.

[jamfropsi]

actually shepard meal frequency does have something to do with weight gain/loss, and that something is metabolism....the longer you wait to eat a meal, the more your metabolism tends to slow down. Also If your trying to lose weight then i would recommend taking in 500 calories less so that you will lose no more than 1-2lbs/week. Anymore than that wouldn't be too healthful plus it will be catabolic on ur muscles.

I guess 5-6 meals/day will do and is recommended to eat every 2-3 hours. I eat every 3-4 because of my scheduel. Weight training will definately aide in losing weight and cardio will make your job that much easier. I'd recommend no more than 4x/week with low-medium intensity since fat is used as the main source of energy when in that situation. Also i think you should add in weight training because remember muscle burns more calories than fat.

[Shepard]

Please show me evidence that 6 meals/day have a greater metabolic affect than 3 meals/day.

Plenty of people have gone under 1-2 lbs./week without losing too much muscle. You just can't do it with the Nutrisystem meals.

I do agree that weight training will be a huge aid in weight loss.

What does it matter if fat is the main source of energy while doing the activity?

[jaydfox]

Please show me evidence that 6 meals/day have a greater metabolic affect than 3 meals/day.

I am curious to see the studies with statistical numerical results. Not because I don't believe it's true (and Shep, I hope you're not implying such), but because I'm curious just how pronounced the effect is. 6 meals/day versus 3 meals/day probably has a much smaller marginal effect than say 3/day versus 1/day.

The basic idea is that when fasting, your body undergoes shifts in metabolism that effect A) more efficient use of calories, at the mitochondrial level (and probably other levels as well), and B) reduced energy needs for non-basic metabolic functions. Lethargy is also effected, which reduces calorie consumption through reduced activity levels (i.e., this effect we have more conscious control over: exert enough will, and this latter effect is probably minimalized).

However, note that I said "fasting". These changes are well documented for fasting periods of 16-18 hours, so my statement of 3 meals/day versus 1 meal/day is easily substantiated.

But I am curious what the shorter term changes are (e.g. of 6/day versus 3/day), and whether they even significantly approach the changes seen with fasting. If not, then the primary benefit of 6/day is merely glucose/insulin control (which affects appetite and lethargy, i.e., the consciously-controlled portions of the weight-loss equation).

And don't underestimate the weight-loss benefits of glucose/insulin control, especially for those with overweight/obesity issues to begin with.

Bear in mind that the larger glucose/insulin spikes of 3 meals/day in sedentary individuals will lead to a larger portion of calories being depostited in adipose (fat) tissue, followed by longer periods of lethargy. Calories can go into adipose tissue very rapidly, via insulin, but come back out very slowly until one reaches a fasting state. (Exercise in a fasting state accelerates free fatty acid release from adipose tissue.)

So for weight loss, there are multiple benefits to 6 meals/day (especially if you're not exercising), though the main benefits won't be from the metabolic standpoint (though there's probably some measurable effect there, and as I said, I'd be interested to see the numbers in a study), but from the standpoint of reduced storage into adipose tissue, decreased lethargy, and increased appetite control.

On the flipside, weight gain can also benefit from greater meal frequency, depending on the type of protein you eat. If you're eating slowly digested protein sources, such as meat/eggs, cheese, etc., then meal frequency isn't as important. If you're using fast protein sources, such as whey, then greater meal frequency will have a benefit, because blood amino acid levels need to be high to prevent catabolism and promote anabolism. Blood amino acid levels will spike very high, which is good for anabolism, but will drop rapidly (not sure on the numbers, but after 2-3 hours sounds about right) after consuming whey protein.

Finally, concerning rapid weight loss. There is plenty of epidemiological evidence that rapid weight loss can be bad, but bear in mind that rapid weight loss is usually associated with A) disease, B) malnutrition, C) muscle loss, and/or D) mineral loss.

If you're not losing weight due to disease (e.g. cancer), then A isn't a concern. Maintaining high micronutrient levels (via nutritionally dense foods and/or supplements) will help prevent B, high protein levels (with every meal) will help prevent C, and mineral supplements (including large doses of vitamin D and calcium [which you should take with the proper ratio of magnesium]) will help prevent D.

This of course doesn't guarantee that the rapid weight loss won't be unhealthy, but it minimizes the risk.

[Shepard]

I'm saying that any metabolic benefit seen from 6 meals/day versus 3 proper meals is going to be very minimal. Blood sugar & insulin control is a different matter, but with proper meals in healthy people (especially active people) it isn't going to be a big deal.

I'm aware of the various theories/studies on fasting, but I don't think this situation relates to that.

I'm willing to bet that if you take your average sedentary person and tell them to double the amount of meals that they eat per day, they'll gain weight. Anyone disagree? Also, if I take the exact same meals and total Caloric value, but cut the size in half and double the frequency....do you think there is going to be a real difference as far as body composition goes?

Regarding rapid weight loss, I'm not advocating it from a health perspective. I'm just saying that the muscle loss isn't all that bad...if done properly. Of course, something like this shouldn't be done for long periods of time from any perspective.

[jaydfox]

Of course, something like this shouldn't be done for long periods of time from any perspective.

True. And when I mentioned minerals, I focussed on calcium, as most people get depleted during extended rapid weight loss. However, other minerals are important as well. I vaguely recall that potassium is one that's easily depleted, and this can lead to health problems. However, it's not enough just to supplement potassium, because too much can have health consequences as well. Hence, you need to have blood tests done regularly during (rapid) weight loss, which is why you're recommended to consult your physician. It's not just for pansy, paranoid reasons. There can be serious health consequences if you lose weight rapidly and you're not properly monitoring a variety of health indicators, supplementing as needed.

But if you can't see a doctor, then at least make sure to get adequate minerals and vitamins. It's not a failsafe, but it's better than nothing.

[Live Forever]

I know this is kind of off topic, but does anyone know if there is any relation for a slow metabolism making you age slower? (slow down free radicals, etc.)

If so, there might be an anti aging effect to eating only one meal a day, slowing down your metabolism, and tricking your body into "starvation mode" (one of the theories I have heard on why CR works). Of course this could all be BS that I am just thinking up on the spot, anyone know anything about this?

[jaydfox]

Hmm, metabolism is hard to pin against aging rate. Across species, the data are very clear that slower metabolism means longer lifespan. Within species, however, I believe the data actually point the other way. Smaller dogs have a higher specific metabolic rate, but live longer than larger dogs. Smaller humans (short people) have a higher SMR, but live longer (I remember this from the CR Society mailing list, I'll see if I can find it later) than tall humans.

The difference seems to be hormonal, but beyond that I don't know.

Another point to consider in intraspecies comparisons of metabolic rates: mice with an inefficient mitochondrial complex (I forget which complex) burn more calories, and produce more heat as a result, but they actually live longer than similar sized mice. This counterintuitive result is very cool (or hot!).

Again, I'll try to find the link.

[Kalepha]

So for weight loss, there are multiple benefits to 6 meals/day (especially if you're not exercising), though the main benefits won't be from the metabolic standpoint (though there's probably some measurable effect there, and as I said, I'd be interested to see the numbers in a study), but from the standpoint of reduced storage into adipose tissue, decreased lethargy, and increased appetite control.

Right, Jay. This has been the typical judgment, anecdotally uttering. So has the judgment to eat ≈3 meals/day, due to having genuinely better things to do, and compensating for it in other ways.

Regrettably, I'm aware of no studies that indicate the benefits to 6 meals/day from a metabolic standpoint, databases being Human Kinetics and Google Scholar. But it's also easy to get hung up on details if one's not a hard case, or if one has some special interest in conjoining exercise science and anti-aging science. The bottom line in physical fitness is VO2 max (maximal oxygen consumption) and body composition, with multiple possible pathways to every approximate target. People tend to lose sight of this and then there's Google.

Nate's original inquiry should be answered by now. More meals = weight gain or loss? It depends and here's why, and here's what's more important and work from there . . .

[zoolander]

When we eat, energy is required to metabolically process the nutrients. This is referred to as the "Thermic Effect of Food (TEF)" and when calculating overall energy expenditure the TEF is factored in. In general it sits at around 10% of the total calories consumed. However, different nutrients have different TEF.

Cut and pasted from here section 8.

After ingestion of a meal or during intravenous infusion of nutrients, the resting energy expenditure of the subject increases above the premeal baseline. This thermogenic response is often called the thermic effect of nutrients; it depends on the absorption, processing and storing of the nutrients. The carbohydrate-induced thermogenic response is about 7% of the glucose energy administered (SCHUTZ et al., 1983), whereas the thermic effect of fat is approximately 3% (THIÉBAUD et al., 1983). By contrast, the stimulation of energy expenditure following protein ingestion or amino acid infusion is close to 30% of the energy administered (FLATT, 1978), which is mainly due to the stimulation of protein synthesis, gluconeogenesis and ureogenesis.

For those who are curious

Decreased thermic effect of food after an irregular compared with a regular meal pattern in healthy lean women.

Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA.

Centre for Integrated Systems Biology and Medicine, Institute of Clinical Research and School of Biomedical Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. mbxhrf@nottingham.ac.uk

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of irregular meal frequency on body weight, energy intake, appetite and resting energy expenditure in healthy lean women. DESIGN: Nine healthy lean women aged 18-42 y participated in a randomised crossover trial consisting of three phases over a total of 43 days. Subjects attended the laboratory at the start and end of phases 1 and 3. In Phase 1 (14 days), subjects were asked to consume similar things as normal, but either on 6 occasions per day (regular meal pattern) or follow a variable predetermined meal frequency (between 3 and 9 meals/day) with the same total number of meals over the week. In Phase 2 (14 days), subjects continued their normal diet as a wash-out period. In Phase 3 (14 days), subjects followed the alternative meal pattern to that followed in Phase 1. Subjects recorded their food intake for three predetermined days during the irregular period when they were eating 9, 3 and 6 meals/day. They also recorded their food intake on the corresponding days during the regular meal pattern period. Subjects fasted overnight prior to each laboratory visit, at which fasting resting metabolic rate (RMR) was measured by open-circuit indirect calorimetry. Postprandial metabolic rate was then measured for 3 h after the consumption of a milkshake test meal (50% CHO, 15% protein and 35% fat of energy content). Subjects rated appetite before and after the test meal. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in body weight and 3-day mean energy intake between the regular and irregular meal pattern. In the irregular period, the mean energy intake on the day when 9 meals were eaten was significantly greater than when 6 or 3 meals were consumed (P=0.0001). There was no significant difference between the 3 days of the regular meal pattern. Subjective appetite measurement showed no significant differences before and after the test meal in all visits. Fasting RMR showed no significant differences over the experiment. The overall thermic effect of food (TEF) over the 3 h after the test meal was significantly lower after the irregular meal pattern (P=0.003). CONCLUSION: Irregular meal frequency led to a lower postprandial energy expenditure compared with the regular meal frequency, while the mean energy intake was not significantly different between the two. The reduced TEF with the irregular meal frequency may lead to weight gain in the long term.

Publication Types:

    * Clinical Trial
    * Randomized Controlled Trial


PMID: 15085170 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Of course I am not interested in the results of this study. I am interested in the healthy lean women who took part in the study. Photos please!

The over-riding thing when need to keep in mind when looking at losing or gaining weight is caloric balance. As shepard stated so well..

Gain weight = consume more Calories than you expend
Lose weight = consume less Calories than you expend

Need more convincing....?

    Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women.

    Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA.

    Centre for Integrated Systems Biology and Medicine, Institute of Clinical Research, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, UK. mbxhrf@nottingham.ac.uk

    BACKGROUND: Although a regular meal pattern is recommended for obese people, its effects on energy metabolism have not been examined. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether a regular meal frequency affects energy intake (EI), energy expenditure, or circulating insulin, glucose, and lipid concentrations in healthy obese women. DESIGN: Ten women [x +/- SD body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 37.1 +/- 4.8] participated in a randomized crossover trial. In phase 1 (14 d), the subjects consumed their normal diet on 6 occasions/d (regular meal pattern) or followed a variable meal frequency (3-9 meals/d, irregular meal pattern). In phase 2 (14 d), the subjects followed the alternative pattern. At the start and end of each phase, a test meal was fed, and blood glucose, lipid, and insulin concentrations were determined before and for 3 h after (glucose and insulin only) the test meal. Subjects recorded their food intake on 3 d during each phase. The thermogenic response to the test meal was ascertained by indirect calorimetry. RESULTS: Regular eating was associated with lower EI (P < 0.01), greater postprandial thermogenesis (P < 0.01), and lower fasting total (4.16 compared with 4.30 mmol/L; P < 0.01) and LDL (2.46 compared with 2.60 mmol/L; P < 0.02) cholesterol. Fasting glucose and insulin values were not affected by meal pattern, but peak insulin concentrations and area under the curve of insulin responses to the test meal were lower after the regular than after the irregular meal pattern (P < 0.01 and 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: Regular eating has beneficial effects on fasting lipid and postprandial insulin profiles and thermogenesis.

    Publication Types:

        * Clinical Trial
        * Randomized Controlled Trial


    PMID: 15640455 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

In all seriousness though......I would ignore the above studies and watch what they are doing on the reality TV show "the BIGGEST LOSER"

How many meals do they eat per day? Huh!

This will take us one step closer to our answer [tung]

Edited by zoolander, 03 May 2006 - 05:49 AM.

[the big b]

All I can add is since I've started eating 6 meals of clean food a day with mild exercise I've lost about 70 pounds. And it's not even been a year yet, of course I'm much less calories, 2500, but the real difference comes in when I eat, every 2 & a 1/2 hours. End totally non scientific fat guy quote.

[scottl]

I hope someone in this thead has mentioned that if you're dieting it is easier being able to eat frequently i.e. you're hungry for shorter periods of time (really infrequently with hoodiea) if you eat the 5 or 6 meals.

[Live Forever]

I drink quite a bit of water throughout the day. I wonder what affect, if any, is had one's system from drinking liquids in between meals. Will it "trick" your system into digesting, and therefore have the benefits of eating meals throughout the day, while having the benefits of not intaking any calories? (if you are drinking water of course, other stuff would have calories)

Anyone smarter than me know?

[zoolander]

Here is an article that may help answer your question Liveforever22.

A piece from the article:

Dr. Barbara Rolls, who holds Penn State's Guthrie Chair in Nutrition, says "We're not sure where the idea that drinking water before or during a meal can stave off hunger originated but it was very popular in the 60s, and is still a common belief. Our research shows that, although drinking water with meals may not be an effective method for reducing calories, eating water-rich foods can lower calorie intake."

The abstract from the above paper reads as follows:

Background: Previous research showed that decreasing the energy density (kJ/g) of foods by adding water to them can lead to reductions in energy intake. Few studies have examined how water consumed as a beverage affects food intake.

Objective: This study examined the effects of water, both served with a food and incorporated into a food, on satiety.

Design: In a within-subjects design, 24 lean women consumed breakfast, lunch, and dinner in our laboratory 1 d/wk for 4 wk. Subjects received 1 of 3 isoenergetic (1128 kJ) preloads 17 min before lunch on 3 d and no preload on 1 d. The preloads consisted of 1) chicken rice casserole, 2) chicken rice casserole served with a glass of water (356 g), and 3) chicken rice soup. The soup contained the same ingredients (type and amount) as the casserole that was served with water.

Results: Decreasing the energy density of and increasing the volume of the preload by adding water to it significantly increased fullness and reduced hunger and subsequent energy intake at lunch. The equivalent amount of water served as a beverage with a food did not affect satiety. Energy intake at lunch was 1209 ± 125 kJ after the soup compared with 1657 ± 148 and 1639 ± 148 kJ after the casserole with and without water, respectively. Subjects did not compensate at dinner for this reduction in lunch intake.

Conclusion: decreasing the energy density of food by adding water to it significantly increased fullness and decreased hunger and subsequent energy intake. An equivalent amount of water served as a beverage with the food did not significantly influence food intake. Thus, consumption of foods with a high water content more effectively decreased subsequent energy intake than did drinking water with food.

Hopefully that helped answer your question

Note though, it states in the conclusion "decreasing the energy density of food" this would also mean "nutrient density". This is why you will hear people saying that drinking water when you eat is not good for you because you dilute the nutrient content. I dont think that you are making the nutrients less active but rather decreasing the amount of nutrients you can take in.

[Shepard]

I'll repost an article from the Body Recomp newsletter this week just for further stuff:


Every week, I read research, tons and tons of research; it's what I do. I have my Pubcrawler system set up to pull all of the recent studies on topics of interest to me (including fat loss, hypertrophy, bodyweight regulation and some other stuff) and I'll be including interesting new studies here every week.

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

Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. 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 24 h 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 likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.

My comments: Ok, since nothing interesting came up on Pubcrawler this week, I decided that I'd crush another long-standing nutritional dogma (I thought about changing this from a research review to a mythbusting column but I'm going to run out of stupid myths to dismiss). How many times have you heard something along the lines of "Eating 6 times per day stokes the metabolic fire." or "You must eat 6 times per day to lose fat effectively." or "Skipping even one meal per day will slow your metabolic rate and you'll hoard fat." Probably a lot.

Well, guess what? The idea is based on piss-poor observational studies and direct research says that it's all bullshit. The idea came, essentially out of a misunderstanding of the thermic effect of food (TEF) also called dietary induced thermogenesis (DIT) which are the calories burned in processing of the food you eat. While TEF differs for the different nutrients, on average it constitutes about 10% of a typical mixed diet. So every time you eat, your metabolic rate goes up a little bit due to TEF. Aha! Eat more and metabolic rate goes up more, right?

Except, let's think about that. Say we have two people, both eating 3000 calories per day. One eats 6 meals of 500 calories/meal while the other eats 3 meals of 1000 calories/meal. The first will have a TEF of 50 calories (10% of 500) 6 times/day. The second will have a TEF of 100 calories (10% of 1000 calories) 3 times/day. Well, 6X50 = 300 calories/day and 3X100 = 300 calories/day. No difference. Sure, if you increase food intake from, say, 1500 calories to 2000 calories, you will burn more with TEF; but this has nothing to do with meal frequency, it has to do with eating more food.

Which brings us, the long way around, to the above review paper which examined not only earlier observational work but also direct studies of varying meal frequency on either weight loss (during such studies) or metabolic rate. And, with the exception of a poorly done study on boxers (which I'll discuss later, maybe next week), they found no effect of varying meal frequency. None. 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 a direct impact on metabolic rate. For example, early observational studies found that people who skipped breakfast were heavier. The study suggested that perhaps people who were overweight had started skipping breakfast in an attempt to lose weight; not that skipping breakfast made them fat.

That is, and in keeping with last week's study (and a lot of confusing issues regarding the effect of food on bodyweight/bodyfat), certain eating patterns tend to impact on caloric intake. Some early studies actually found that eating more frequently caused weight gain, mainly because the foods being added were snacks and were in addition to normal food intake. Other studies have shown that splitting one's daily calories into multiple smaller meals helps to control hunger: people tend to eat less when they split their meals and eat more frequently. When you go too long between meals (I usually find that 3-5 hours is about the limit depending on the meal composition), you tend to get hungry and end up at the vending machine eating candy. Eating more smaller meals can also have some health benefits in terms of blood glucose control and blood cholesterol; no-one is denying that.

However, this is all tangential to the claims being made for metabolic rate. Whether you eat 3 meals per day or 6, if your daily caloric intake is identical, you will expend the same number of calories per day from TEF. And, as opposed to mice and rats, for whom everything happens faster, skipping a meal will not affect human metabolic rate at all. Quite in fact, it takes at least 3-4 days of fairly strict dieting to impact on metabolic rate; a single meal means nothing. You will not go into 'starvation mode' because you went more than 3 hours without a meal.

More practically, I sometimes wonder if the people who are adamant about 6 meals/day have ever worked with a small female athlete or bodybuilder. A 120 lb female may have a daily food intake of 1200 calories/day on a diet. Dividing that into 6 meals gives you 200 calorie 'meals'. More like a snack. 4 meals of 300 calories or even 3 meals of 400 calories is a much more livable approach than a few bites of food every 3 hours. The low caloric intake on my Rapid Fat Loss Handbook more or less prevents a 6 meal/day approach, each 'meal' ends up being nothing. I recommend 3-4 meals/day on that diet.

So, like last week's research review about the glycemic index, quit obsessing about meal frequency if it doesn't fit easily into your lifestyle. I consider 3-4 meals/day a workable minimum for most, 3 meals plus a couple of snacks works just fine too. High meal frequencies may have benefits under certain conditions but are in no way mandatory. And, in case you missed it the first time through: eating more frequently does NOT, I repeat DOES NOT, 'stoke the metabolic fire'.