6 meals v.s. 3 big meals
Options
Replies
-
-
Michael190lbs wrote: »
Proves further that personal preference/satiety is the most important thing. I'd rather skip breakfast (or have a very light one) and eat a moderate lunch and larger dinner. I'd be starving in the evening if I ate breakfast, lunch and skipped dinner! I'm usually not terribly hungry in the morning, but always hungry at dinner time.
A bunch of little meals doesn't do it for me either - every one feels like just enough to be a tease and then I'm hungry all the time. I'd rather eat fewer, larger, more satiating meals.
Here's one study which shows that meal frequency had no effect upon weight loss: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/199439850 -
Michael190lbs wrote: »
A bunch of little meals doesn't do it for me either - every one feels like just enough to be a tease and then I'm hungry all the time. I'd rather eat fewer, larger, more satiating meals.
+1 - also there's just more prep and washing up. Pain in the butt.0 -
No medical issues concerning insulin. I was just reading some articles and am trying to figure it out. I eat 6 a day. Clean. But there are many who say that if you do not have a medical issue to eat 3 or 4 big meals. Mostly because of insulin spikes, avoid insulin desensitization, let the body use stored fat.....
usmcmp, you are ripped up, what do you do?
I eat when I'm hungry. Sometimes that is 3 meals, usually it's 5 to 8 "meals". Sometimes it's cake, sometimes it's chicken and vegetables, sometimes it's a snack cake. I hit appropriate macros and I lift 4 days per week. Some days it's lots of protein, fruits and vegetables. Some days there's significant amounts of sweets.
Agreed with where the above is going. Unless there is a medical reason, it's all preference. I have people on my FL that do 3 big meals, one guy who does 2 huge meals and sometimes a small 3rd, and others that eat more often.
I have reactive hypoglycemia issues so I'm "supposed" to eat every 2-3 hours...supposed to >.>
But since you don't have any medical issues, eat how many meals work best for you to achieve your goals.0 -
I've lost weight doing both. As I've gotten older I have settled on 4 'meals' and one snack. Just fits my natural breaks at work and my hunger patterns well.
I didn't really notice any differences in rate or ease of doing it.0 -
Either way just saying "tests have shown", " not keeping up with the science", etc hold no more weight then advertising claims in magazines. Name the tests and science..0
-
Either way just saying "tests have shown", " not keeping up with the science", etc hold no more weight then advertising claims in magazines. Name the tests and science..
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196602172740703
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/24/4/465.long
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=846276&fileId=S0007114581000056
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383639?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7499636&fileId=S0007114509992984
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n5/full/0802616a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/?tool=pubmed
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/1772550 -
I am one of those people with a medical reason. If you look at some of the literature for people with diabetes or insulin resistance, they are told to eat many small meals to reduce spikes form larger meals.
But I believe the opposing idea that it is better for such people to eat fewer meals, and to allow your body free time where nothing is causing any insulin spikes.
It works for me. My blood glucose was already normal, but it became even lower when I went to 2 meals in an 8 hour timeframe for the last month.
Years ago, when I ate more carbs, I did feel the need to snack between meals. Now that I eat less carbs, I rarely snack.
If you are losing weight and don't have other issues like insulin resistance, I think you should eat the amount of meals that works for you and keeps you satisfied. If you feel hungry a lot or are NOT losing weight, reducing meals (while consuming the same calories) might be something to try and see if it does anything for you.
0 -
There are different opinions on the matter. 6 meals a day spaces out nutrients more evenly and keeps metabolism up. However, it supposedly weakens overall insulin response and since the body is constantly fed, the body has no need to burn fat for energy.
My question is this. What do you follow and what results have you seen. Have you tried both strategies? Which worked best?
If I go to 3 meals, do I just merge two meals together?
Eat when you want to eat. I generally rely on coffee in the AM, and sometimes a bagel or fruit bar. But it's not at all uncommon for me to eat 75% or greater of my calories starting at dinner time and then graving afterwards. On days I exercise hard, that can mean eating 2000+ calories after 5 PM. And I've done just fine with weight loss, as well as building muscle when I was trying to.Either way just saying "tests have shown", " not keeping up with the science", etc hold no more weight then advertising claims in magazines. Name the tests and science..
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196602172740703
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/24/4/465.long
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=846276&fileId=S0007114581000056
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383639?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7499636&fileId=S0007114509992984
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n5/full/0802616a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/?tool=pubmed
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/177255
Not shocked that you have multiple sources at hand. And really interesting that you mention the possible metabolic increase after a fasted state. Though I wasn't aware of any science backing that, I have noticed that at some point in fasting my body seems to go into "want food now" mode, beyond just the hunger. As in if I eat after being fasted 12-16 hours and especially if I got a decent calorie burn exercise session in, the first things that hit my stomach trigger like a major attack on digestion or something. Not uncomfortable, but it's like the gremlins in the stomach were just waiting to pounce on prey.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Either way just saying "tests have shown", " not keeping up with the science", etc hold no more weight then advertising claims in magazines. Name the tests and science..
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196602172740703
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/24/4/465.long
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=846276&fileId=S0007114581000056
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383639?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7499636&fileId=S0007114509992984
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n5/full/0802616a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/?tool=pubmed
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/177255
Not shocked that you have multiple sources at hand. And really interesting that you mention the possible metabolic increase after a fasted state. Though I wasn't aware of any science backing that, I have noticed that at some point in fasting my body seems to go into "want food now" mode, beyond just the hunger. As in if I eat after being fasted 12-16 hours and especially if I got a decent calorie burn exercise session in, the first things that hit my stomach trigger like a major attack on digestion or something. Not uncomfortable, but it's like the gremlins in the stomach were just waiting to pounce on prey.
It's one of the "reasons" behind why Intermittent Fasting is suggested as a 16 hour fasting period. The metabolism didn't drop to below average levels until 72 hours in the fasted state. Whether that would be different for someone with a history of eating disorders I couldn't tell you.
ETA: I do want to note that further studies done on meal frequency showed improved blood work health markers in obese patients with a higher frequency intake versus one or two large meals. These people had borderline or unhealthy health markers. In a person with normal blood work readings there was no change.0 -
Pollywog_la wrote: »I am one of those people with a medical reason. If you look at some of the literature for people with diabetes or insulin resistance, they are told to eat many small meals to reduce spikes form larger meals.
But I believe the opposing idea that it is better for such people to eat fewer meals, and to allow your body free time where nothing is causing any insulin spikes.
It works for me. My blood glucose was already normal, but it became even lower when I went to 2 meals in an 8 hour timeframe for the last month.
Years ago, when I ate more carbs, I did feel the need to snack between meals. Now that I eat less carbs, I rarely snack.
I eat a normal amount of carbs and feel no need to snack.
I think people vary as to how many meals work for them, and also -- speaking for myself -- habit may affect it.0 -
Either way just saying "tests have shown", " not keeping up with the science", etc hold no more weight then advertising claims in magazines. Name the tests and science..
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196602172740703
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/24/4/465.long
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=846276&fileId=S0007114581000056
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383639?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7499636&fileId=S0007114509992984
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n5/full/0802616a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/?tool=pubmed
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/177255
Show off...
And tagging!!!
I eat three meals a day because the increase in volume is more important to my adherence. 6 + just makes me more hungry.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Either way just saying "tests have shown", " not keeping up with the science", etc hold no more weight then advertising claims in magazines. Name the tests and science..
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196602172740703
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/24/4/465.long
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=846276&fileId=S0007114581000056
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383639?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7499636&fileId=S0007114509992984
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n5/full/0802616a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/?tool=pubmed
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/177255
Not shocked that you have multiple sources at hand. And really interesting that you mention the possible metabolic increase after a fasted state. Though I wasn't aware of any science backing that, I have noticed that at some point in fasting my body seems to go into "want food now" mode, beyond just the hunger. As in if I eat after being fasted 12-16 hours and especially if I got a decent calorie burn exercise session in, the first things that hit my stomach trigger like a major attack on digestion or something. Not uncomfortable, but it's like the gremlins in the stomach were just waiting to pounce on prey.
It's one of the "reasons" behind why Intermittent Fasting is suggested as a 16 hour fasting period. The metabolism didn't drop to below average levels until 72 hours in the fasted state. Whether that would be different for someone with a history of eating disorders I couldn't tell you.
ETA: I do want to note that further studies done on meal frequency showed improved blood work health markers in obese patients with a higher frequency intake versus one or two large meals. These people had borderline or unhealthy health markers. In a person with normal blood work readings there was no change.
I just want to say I love your POSTS and am Very thankful for the info you provide.. Big Thank you!!0 -
Michael190lbs wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Either way just saying "tests have shown", " not keeping up with the science", etc hold no more weight then advertising claims in magazines. Name the tests and science..
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196602172740703
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/24/4/465.long
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=846276&fileId=S0007114581000056
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383639?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7499636&fileId=S0007114509992984
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n5/full/0802616a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/?tool=pubmed
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/177255
Not shocked that you have multiple sources at hand. And really interesting that you mention the possible metabolic increase after a fasted state. Though I wasn't aware of any science backing that, I have noticed that at some point in fasting my body seems to go into "want food now" mode, beyond just the hunger. As in if I eat after being fasted 12-16 hours and especially if I got a decent calorie burn exercise session in, the first things that hit my stomach trigger like a major attack on digestion or something. Not uncomfortable, but it's like the gremlins in the stomach were just waiting to pounce on prey.
It's one of the "reasons" behind why Intermittent Fasting is suggested as a 16 hour fasting period. The metabolism didn't drop to below average levels until 72 hours in the fasted state. Whether that would be different for someone with a history of eating disorders I couldn't tell you.
ETA: I do want to note that further studies done on meal frequency showed improved blood work health markers in obese patients with a higher frequency intake versus one or two large meals. These people had borderline or unhealthy health markers. In a person with normal blood work readings there was no change.
I just want to say I love your POSTS and am Very thankful for the info you provide.. Big Thank you!!
Always happy to contribute! When I first started here it was all or nothing with a lot of points. Many users have moved away from that, thankfully, and started encouraging people to find healthy ways that work for them. There are still people that have been successful through a single method and insist it is the only way.
Strictly dictated diet and exercise is really only relevant to people with specific goals (like bodybuilding or triathletes). Anything other than that should be personal preference/adherence with an eye on science to make sure they aren't causing harm. Sometimes goals change or their results aren't what they want, then we figure out what changes need to be made.0 -
Usmcmp
, thanks !
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions