Counting Calories vs. 6 Small Meals

karleiann

I was wondering which method is more effective: counting calories or eating 6 smaller meals a day?

I have been counting calories for a long time, but have recently started breaking my meals into smaller ones spread throughout the day. I've noticed when I do this, I actually take in more calories than when I just eat three meals a day.

Which one should I focus more on because I've heard good and bad things for each?

asdowe13

Without counting calories how will you know how many calories are in those 6 small meals?

esjones12

You can eat however often you want. But you need calories in to be less than calories out in order to lose weight. Period. Most people find they need to actually count calories in order to keep that equation. Portion sizes are pretty skewed these days, and counting calories forces you to measure the food out and realize what you are putting in your mouth.

Sued0nim

eating 6 more meals or not you only lose weight on a calorie defecit so you kinda need to count your calories with both methods

slaite1

You answered you own question. If eating 6 small meals causes you to eat more than don't do it!

4legsRbetterthan2

if you are eating too many calories on 6 meals a day you will gain weight, meal timing is irrelevant for weight loss, it's just one of the "metabolism boosting" myths people like to hear

if you want to eat more meals because that makes you happy, then by all means be happy, but that does not negate your need to stick to your calorie goal for the day

fwiw I often times eat 2 meals a day and have had plenty of success

ana3067

Your goal is weight loss right? This answers your question.

karleiann

I'm sorry, I didn't phrase my question very well. I understand that I have to take in less calories to lose weight. What I wanted to know was which is better overall?

I take in more calories when I do the small meals during the day, but is the metabolism boost and spreading out the meals over the day better for my health overall than just having three larger meals everyday? My main goal is overall health and fitness, not so much weight loss. That is just a bonus.

hollyrayburn

it doesnt matter if you eat 10 tiny meals, or one gigantic one. it's all about calorie deficit.

3laine75

Counting calories is more effective or you can do both (if 6 small meals suits you better).

I tried 6 small meals a few years back - turns out they weren't as small as I thought they were XD

Edit: no, the 'metabolism boost' isn't better for overall health.

TimothyFish

People spend a lot of time talking about improving metabolism, but doing something like eating more frequently isn't going to make much difference in metabolism. If you want to see significant increases in metabolism, exercise more. If you are exercising more, it might make sense to eat more frequently, so that you are properly fueling your workout. But without the exercise, it doesn't matter.

rebeccahunt718

I do both. I have breakfast, a small mid morning snack, lunch, small early afternoon snack, late afternoon snack, and dinner. But I also watch my calories. I feel more full doing it this way and I do better with keeping to my calorie counting than when I was eating 3 meals a day with 1-2 snacks. But my day starts a 6 when I wake up for work and I don't get home until 5 to start cooking dinner so the later afternoon snack helps me make it home (30mins-hour drive, depending on traffic) without stopping at a fast food joint for a craving.

SilverRose89

karleiann wrote: »

I'm sorry, I didn't phrase my question very well. I understand that I have to take in less calories to lose weight. What I wanted to know was which is better overall?

I take in more calories when I do the small meals during the day, but is the metabolism boost and spreading out the meals over the day better for my health overall than just having three larger meals everyday? My main goal is overall health and fitness, not so much weight loss. That is just a bonus.

Well the 'metabolism boost' isn't really a thing so it just comes down to whatever you prefer to do.

ndj1979

what happens when you don't count calories and your six meals equals a caloric surplus??????

ndj1979

karleiann wrote: »

I'm sorry, I didn't phrase my question very well. I understand that I have to take in less calories to lose weight. What I wanted to know was which is better overall?

I take in more calories when I do the small meals during the day, but is the metabolism boost and spreading out the meals over the day better for my health overall than just having three larger meals everyday? My main goal is overall health and fitness, not so much weight loss. That is just a bonus.

it does not matter.

You get the same metabolism boost from six small meals, three meals, or one meal ever 24 hours …

just eat in a calorie deficit and hit your macro/micro targets for the day….

asdowe13

karleiann wrote: »

I'm sorry, I didn't phrase my question very well. I understand that I have to take in less calories to lose weight. What I wanted to know was which is better overall?

I take in more calories when I do the small meals during the day, but is the metabolism boost and spreading out the meals over the day better for my health overall than just having three larger meals everyday? My main goal is overall health and fitness, not so much weight loss. That is just a bonus.

Neither is better than the other, unless you prefer one to the other.

mrsmuckster

I try to eat every 2-3 hours, though I wouldn't necessarily call them meals. I plan my whole day and divvy up the food amongst those "meal" times. I still have to track and count or I'm sure I would go overboard.

lemurcat12

As others have said, there's no metabolism boost. The reason eating small meals works is that for some people (often people with blood sugar issues) it makes it easier to control their eating and eat fewer calories. Personally, it would make me miserable and unsatisfied and result in me eating more calories, so I'd lose worse that way.