In no way is it a myth.
You eat three big meals you're overloading in nutrients and your body's storing the extra calories as fat.
Incorrect. Fat only gets stored if there is a surplus of NET
calories. If my maintenance for any given day is 2000 calories, then I could eat 2000 in one meal and I wouldn't gain any fat at all (providing I don't eat again that day). It's obviously not smart, but it highlights the basic flaw in your thinking. The body does not simply take it's required nutrients from a meal and store the rest as fat. Calorie is king.
You eat three small meals and you're going to send your body into starvation mode. It's not a known fact that 6 meals a day positively effects your metabolism, but it's a solid theory.
Who said anything about three small
meals? The point is that you can get your daily caloric intake through whatever is convenient for you. It makes no different if that's through 3 large meals or 6 small meals. I personally do around 5-6 because it's easier for me; certainly not because it has any effect on my metabolism (it doesn't).
5-6 meals is optimal for your metabolism because it takes around 2 hours to digest each meal which burns more fat and amino acids last around 3 hours in the bloodstream before going into the body/being used as energy.
See above. Eating 6 small meals has no metabolic benefits over eating 3 larger meals on any given day. Studies can be provided if you still wish to disagree.
The main benefit to eating 5-6 meals a day is to better stabilize blood sugar levels/prevent hunger.
The blood sugar level notion is a contentious point. I won't disagree with it because I'm in no position to. With regards to hunger, I agree. That's why I eat smaller and more often. I just recognize it's not going to boost my metabolism.
When your glycogen levels go down your body has to find alternate energy to use (at times muscle.)
You think that eating three square meals a day crashes your glycogen so much that its gonna start eating away muscle? Come on, man.
If you think you'll keep the same metabolic rate from eating 3 meals a few times compared to 6 you're crazy.
I might be crazy, but I'd be right.
You might not be catabolic if you go 5-6 hours without eating, but you're headed towards that direction and you're becoming less and less anabolic the longer you go without eating...
You talk like I'm on about eating three meals consisting of a few grapes and a piece of toast. Everything I say revolves around caloric intake and the breakdown of macros to reach whichever goal we're trying to hit. Also, I'm presuming we're talking about this in the context that we're training with heavy weights.
Originally Posted by Hohenheim of Light
Both of these are true. They may not be true for you yet, but they are general truths. Consult any nutritionalist.
Incorrect. First point has been discussed at length if we're talking about metabolic rates. Refer to SS's post above for more about the relationship of calories & fat/weight gain/loss. Oh, and It's nutritionist
This is fun.