Eating 3 square meals a day or eating every few hours???

Korriinn

Before, when I was going to the gym regularly with my trainer I ate every couple hours. Breakfast, handful of almonds, lunch...etc. Now that I am doing everything on my own at home I have been eating a good breakfast, lunch, dinner and sometimes I will have a snack depending on my hunger levels. My question is- is one way better than the other? Will my metabolism benefit the most by eating every few hours or does it matter? What works the best for you? Thanks!

peachyfuzzle

Nope, your metabolism doesn't care what time you eat. There is no causality between meal timing, and rate of weight loss. Eat whenever you'd like as long as you stay within your calorie budget, and you'll be good.

hgycta

^Yup, meal timing was shown to be completely irrelevant.
Eat whatever/whenever helps you to stay within your caloric allowance for the day! If you get ravenous by waiting for each meal, plan for snacks! If you get distracted and can wait or prefer larger meals, then do that!

Merkavar

I could understand this idea because protein couldn't be absorbed if you ate more than 30g in one go.

But last I heard that has been disproven.

I think eat as often as you like is the best option. Being to strict seems to be major cause of failure

galgenstrick

I think I read a study that said fasting for over 36 hours actually increases metabolic rate. So don't worry about going without eating or eating too frequently, it really doesn't matter

Emilia777

Yep, meal timing really makes no difference. I never eat breakfast before noon, for instance. Weight loss right on track. Do what works for you!

iteese

Basically everything everyone has already said is the same that I've been reading as well. It's amazing how much science has changed our opinion on eating in just the last few years.

FitForL1fe

another vote for no difference. space out your calories however you want

Azexas

I vote it doesn't make a difference. Find what works best for you!

Personally I eat three meals a day with a snack in between.

Merkavar

I prefer 3 larger meals. I normally watch TV. So I make some breakfast and watch some 8 out of 10 cats before going to work.

If I had smaller meals I would have to stop and start an episode too much.

daniprimalbeast

I used to eat 5 or 6 meals a day. I now eat 3 meals with a snack if I feel like it. Overall, I don't see any difference besides the fact it is easier to pack meals for school or work. Do what works for you.

atypicalsmith

It really doesn't matter. Of course, if you eat a heavy meal just before you go to sleep, it could cause acid reflux.

bpetrosky

No difference. I think the eating 6x/day idea came originally out of the bodybuilding nutrition world. In that case you're eating a fair bit more and it's easier to break up the meals a bit more. Somehow that started becoming the received wisdom given on diet plans generally, even if it doesn't make sense for those trying to cut.

judiness101

Eating frequency does not have an impact on metabolism. I eat 2 meals a day with no snack and it has been the most positive change I did in my weightloss (besides counting calories of course).

TimothyFish

The only reason I can think of that snacking might be beneficial is that it keeps you from being so hungry between meals.

thenewkayla

Breakfast 2pm.
Snack. 5.30pm.
Lunch 7pm.
Snack before dinner 11.30
And dinner 2am.
The joys of working second shift

megomerrett

I vote that it's up to you too. Personally, I'm 3 meals a day with a couple of snacks and lots of tea (white, no sugar) so I can eat normal food with my kids. Plus I can have bigger portions than if spreading through the day.bl

colors_fade

bpetrosky wrote: »

No difference. I think the eating 6x/day idea came originally out of the bodybuilding nutrition world. In that case you're eating a fair bit more and it's easier to break up the meals a bit more. Somehow that started becoming the received wisdom given on diet plans generally, even if it doesn't make sense for those trying to cut.

Well, the bodybuilding community and Susan Powter. I remember that being her big thing: eat 6x per day.

The science has proven it doesn't matter, so I eat 3x per day. It's just easier to have 3 meals at breakfast, lunch and dinner. I, personally, don't like trying to organize snacks and stuff. I find it way easier to overeat if snacking is part of my day.

I also enjoy the ritual of cooking/preparing those meals..

cwolfman13

but...must....rev...metabolism....need kickstart...

Gska17

cwolfman13 wrote: »

but...must....rev...metabolism....need kickstart...

LOL

After four months of tinkering (and losing, nearly to goal) I figured out what worked best for me. These times vary depending on appetite:

9:30 AM: breakfast
Noon: snack (if needed, often skipped)
1:30: lunch
4:00 snack
7-9: rest of calories. Dinner, snacks, alcohol, etc.

I like to have at least 200 additional calories to play with around dinnertime. I don't like running up against a wall and often don't unless I've eaten out.

J72FIT

Korriinn wrote: »

Before, when I was going to the gym regularly with my trainer I ate every couple hours. Breakfast, handful of almonds, lunch...etc. Now that I am doing everything on my own at home I have been eating a good breakfast, lunch, dinner and sometimes I will have a snack depending on my hunger levels. My question is- is one way better than the other? Will my metabolism benefit the most by eating every few hours or does it matter? What works the best for you? Thanks!

Both work equally as well. Choose the method you find works best for you, preferences etc...