Several small meals a day or 2-3 big meals?

daisydreams1234

Is it just a preference, or is one better then the other?
many small (100-250 cal) or 2-3 big (450-600 cal) meals? are there any benefits to either choice? or does it not really matter all that much?

thanks

MikePTY

Does not matter at all. It's all about personal preference. If you find that many smaller meals helps keep you fuller or is more enjoyable, that's fine. If you find that a few bigger meals keeps you fuller or is more enjoyable, that's fine. 1500 calories is 1500 calories. Eat them however it pleases you.

corinasue1143

There may be some benefits to both, but ultimately, the meal schedule that keeps you happy and helps you achieve your goals is what’s best for you.
My personal experience is to never go more than 4-5 hours without a meal or a planned, healthy snack, but you may be different.

cwolfman13

daisydreams1234 wrote: »

Is it just a preference, or is one better then the other?
many small (100-250 cal) or 2-3 big (450-600 cal) meals? are there any benefits to either choice? or does it not really matter all that much?

thanks

It doesn't matter at all. Personally, I wound find it a total pain in the *kitten* to have to stop what I'm doing and eat every couple hours or whatever.

lemurcat2

It's just a preference, but if one or the other makes hitting the calories easier for you, that one is better for you.

I much prefer 2-3 meals, but some enjoy snacking. For me snacking is unsatisfying and would make hitting my goal harder (and be generally annoying); others find they do better eating small amounts more often because it keeps them satisfied and not hungry.

quiksylver296

Lietchi

It's personal preference.

I once gave into the "you must eat 6 smaller meals a day to lose weight" mantra, but it didn't work for me. I never felt satisfied and ended up eating more food and gaining weight instead of losing (before I started calorie counting on MFP).
For me two main meals a day (lunch, dinner) and an evening snack is standard now, sometimes with a small breakfast or an afternoon snack, depending on my activities/inclination that day.

cmriverside

For me two main meals a day (lunch, dinner) and an evening snack is standard now, sometimes with a small breakfast or an afternoon snack, depending on my activities/inclination that day.

^^This is what I do too.

...and yeah, when I tried a lot of smaller meals I was always thinking about food and never satisfied.

NovusDies

There are people with versions of hypoglycemia that must eat small meals in certain intervals. There are people like me that if I eat before 11am (or thereabouts) I am hungrier for the rest of the day. So in specific situations it can matter but mostly it should just be what feels easiest.

My very brief experiment with 6 meals a day resulted in more hunger, constant thoughts of food, annoyance at the extra meal planning, and that I never ate enough to feel full.

vampirequeen1959

Eat whichever way suits you best. I like three 'proper' meals a day but I know other people but my daughter is a grazer. Just watch your calories and make sure you're getting the right mixture of foods whichever way you choose.

hesn92

I think it's best to experiment and see what works best for you... I love eating a big dinner with room for a bedtime snack. I would be so disappointed if I only got a small 300 calorie dinner or something.

sardelsa

Personal preference. I prefer 1-2 large meals and 5-7 small meals/snacks

nighthawk584

I eat every couple hours for 12 hour period. I need it to keep my blood sugar level. I eat the most calories in the morning before my workout.

shaf238

Personal preference. I like to space out my intake over a number of meals, but some days mean I have to have a whopper dinner (I'm bulking atm so have a high daily calorie intake).

serindipte

As others have said, for weight loss, it doesn't matter. For me, personally, I prefer two main meals (lunch/supper) and saving room for an evening snack. If I do three meals/day, I still end up wanting that snack at night, so just skip the morning meal because it's easier for me that way.

AnnPT77

There is plenty of research about what is the best meal number and timing and it says blah blah blah (<=== things that don't really matter arithmetically beyond a tiny fraction of daily energy expenditure, and that in ways that are largely irrelevant if you're calorie counting and sticking to a sensible goal).

In an actual practical sense, what folks said above is right: Whatever works best for you is best. Any tiny theoretical advantage of a particular approach - all of which are widely and wildly disputed - is outweighed (heh) by the fact that if you're on a schedule that works best for you, it's easier to stick to your calorie goal, so you're more likely to actually continue long enough to lose a material amount of weight, and keep it off.

Experiment, and see what keeps you full and happy on a reasonable calorie goal, then keep doing that. It'll work great.

rainbow198

I believe your over all calorie count matters not so much meal timing.

For me, I love eating bigger meals then giving myself a break and no snacking. Just eat meals.

I did lose most of my weight eating several times a day however - I just thought you had to do that. Until one day I decided to become a rebel and combine meals and snacks and enjoyed that much, much more. I didn't gain because my calorie count was the same. I was just eating more, but less frequently.

katarina005

daisydreams1234 wrote: »

Is it just a preference, or is one better then the other?
many small (100-250 cal) or 2-3 big (450-600 cal) meals? are there any benefits to either choice? or does it not really matter all that much?

thanks

Small meals throughout the day. Maybe it benefits the metabolism, don't know for sure. But its what most athletes and celebrities too and it's better for your digestion

ccrdragon

katarina005 wrote: »

daisydreams1234 wrote: »

Is it just a preference, or is one better then the other?
many small (100-250 cal) or 2-3 big (450-600 cal) meals? are there any benefits to either choice? or does it not really matter all that much?

thanks

Small meals throughout the day. Maybe it benefits the metabolism, don't know for sure. But its what most athletes and celebrities too and it's better for your digestion

It does not benefit the metabolism, who cares what celebs do and how is it better for your digestion?

It is a personal preference and you should eat in a manner that is both satisfying to you and helps you stay within your calorie goal - whether that is 10 meals a day, 1 meal a day or anything in between.

minimiss669

Im so glad to read this post. I am happy to switch it up on different days. I wasn't being successful eating every 4 or 5 hours and would often eat all of my calories by noon and then be sad the rest of the day, because I couldn't eat. But, inevitably, I would go over my limit a couple of hundred calories so I was basically maintaining my weight instead of being in a deficit. Eating small meals every few hours is much more satisfying for me because I never have to wait that long before eating, I can enjoy a vast variety of foods, and I feel less deprived. On other days, maybe I'll want to feel full and eat a bigger meal. I just really like the variety smaller meals offers. There are lots of good recipes. But, I was worried that it went against all of the information I've read about insulin and intermittent fasting.

sgt1372

I wouldn't call 400-600 cals a BIG meal but it doesn't how cals in a meal that you eat, it's how much in total, based on your wt loss/maintenance/gain goals are, that you eat each day. How you go about doing it is entirely up to you.

paperpudding

daisydreams1234 wrote: »

Is it just a preference, or is one better then the other?
many small (100-250 cal) or 2-3 big (450-600 cal) meals? are there any benefits to either choice? or does it not really matter all that much?

thanks

Neither is objectively better than the other - and of course it isnt a false dichotomy either, you can do any combination of calories - not neccesarily 2-3 big meals or many mini meals
Some people even do one meal a day (thats definitily not for me)

I eat 3 meals per day, not all the same calorie size and one mid morning snack and one small after dinner snack

But sometimes I skip the mid morning snack and sometimes I only have 2 main meals -, every day doesnt have to be the same either.

minimiss669

I think that might be key... not every day has to be the same. Switching it up might have unusual advantages.

paperpudding

Well, no, I'm not saying switching it up is the key to anything or has any advantages.

I see no advantages, other than personal preference, to eating exactly the same calorie/ timing pattern every day or it being different on different days.

minimiss669

paperpudding wrote: »

Well, no, I'm not saying switching it up is the key to anything or has any advantages.

I see no advantages, other than personal preference, to eating exactly the same calorie/ timing pattern every day or it being different on different days.

Darn it, I thought I hit upon a key to weight loss! Something else I wonder about eating large meals, say as you would if you were eating within a small time window. If I'm eating more than I need at that moment, doesn't the extra get stored as fat? Im guessing that the body doesn't work that way, but I associate being full with gaining weight.

AnnPT77

minimiss669 wrote: »

paperpudding wrote: »

Well, no, I'm not saying switching it up is the key to anything or has any advantages.

I see no advantages, other than personal preference, to eating exactly the same calorie/ timing pattern every day or it being different on different days.

Darn it, I thought I hit upon a key to weight loss! Something else I wonder about eating large meals, say as you would if you were eating within a small time window. If I'm eating more than I need at that moment, doesn't the extra get stored as fat? Im guessing that the body doesn't work that way, but I associate being full with gaining weight.

Doesn't work that way. Keep in mind that it takes time to metabolize food: It's not like it hits your stomach and poof, you burn it in the next 15 minutes or it turns into fat. (Full digestive tract transit can take 50+ hours, and there's digestive fun of one sort or another happening most of the way, including the phase where our lower gut bugs eat our leftovers and produce chemicals that feed back to benefit our bodies. Complicated: There's a lot going on. And, even if it did turn into fat for a hour, and then that fat got burned off 2 hour later in a workout . . . why would we care? The net result is approximately the same.

The preference/satiation effects of eating timing are are a much bigger deal for average folks than any metabolic or biochemical-magic issues. If I get cranky without breakfast, bicker with my spouse, and it ends in divorce, that's more important in my life than whether I burned 32 more calories by fasting longer (and there's no great evidence I would).

If someone's an elite athlete, trying to squeeze out the last 0.005% performance improvement against equally committed opponents, maybe even for bodybuilders who are very lean and going for certain technical changes before a competition, nutrient timing may be worth looking at.

For us typical people? Nah, not so much. If it doesn't affect our individual satiation or our self-perceived energy level, the only thing tricksy nutrient timing does is make us feel like we're doing something extra cool and special.