3 meals vs. 6 little meals a day

laurie62ann

I was wondering who has success in eating 3 meals a day vs. 6 little meals a day. I've been doing some research and they are "studies" that say you increase your metabolism by eating 6 little meals a day; then there are studies that say it doesn't matter.

Isn't it Calories IN vs. Calories OUT that matters!!

What's everybody doing 3 or 6?

navyrigger46

It doesn't matter, your metabolism is like the titanic, it takes forever to change course. Myself, some days I eat three meals, some days two, some days as many as eight and some days just one. Meal timing and frequency are pretty much irrelevant with regard to weight loss.

Rigger

michael300891

Focus on energy deficit regardless how you do it.

However, if you want to care about timings, consider getting protein intake in boluses throughout the day to preserve lean mass during your energy deficit.

Point two is SECONDARY to point one.

Get energy deficit first, thats the priority, doesnt hugely matter if you do 1, 2, 4, 6, 10 or 20 meals a day as long as your at an energy deficit.

willdob3

Generally speaking, the number of meals does not matter. This has been proven. Do whatever works best for you & your lifestyle.

I've followed lots of different meal plans in the past & can look back to what worked best for me. While I had success with all of them (5 & 6 meals per day, too), the best results were from eating 3 good-sized meals per day with no snacks. Different people find other plans work best for them.

No, it is not ALL about calories in/out. Anyone stating this is not up on their science. Calories do count but there are many other things that also count. Our bodies are very complex in how they use what we eat.

laurie04427

I naturaly do 5 meals so I'm just trying to even out the calories and macros between them which is the hard part.

deksgrl

It doesn't matter. Except if having meals more often keeps you more satisfied so you don't eat too much at the 3 meals.

OverDoIt

If your can get all of your calories in 3 meals then do it. The reason I, and others i know eat 5-6 meals is because it is really hard to shove 1,200 to 1,400 calories in one sitting of "clean" hahaha food. Do what you dig brother, you know your body better than anybody here.

michael300891

No, it is not ALL about calories in/out. Anyone stating this is not up on their science. Calories do count but there are many other things that also count. Our bodies are very complex in how they use what we eat.

I Disagree. Saying it's only calories in/out is relevant, because whilst there is more complexity to it than that, the vast majority of users on MFP only need to worry about energy intake.

Elite athlete? Worry about macronutrients
Severely obese? Worry about macronutrients
Metabolic conditions? Worry about macronutrients
Severe energy deficit? Worry about macronutrients
Trying to 'bulk up'? Worry about protein intake and energy surplus
Trying to lose body fat? Maintain energy deficit and perhaps consider protein intake.

jimmmer

I was wondering who has success in eating 3 meals a day vs. 6 little meals a day. I've been doing some research and they are "studies" that say you increase your metabolism by eating 6 little meals a day; then there are studies that say it doesn't matter.

Isn't it Calories IN vs. Calories OUT that matters!!

What's everybody doing 3 or 6?

I eat 2 meals a day. It really doesn't matter. If these meals are less than my TDEE, I'll lose weight. If more, I'll gain it.

Find an eating style that jives with your lifestyle and you'll stick with it and succeed.

Try to contort your lifestyle to some arbitrary eating style and you'll stick with it for 2 weeks tops.

Lizzy622

Personally I am better eating 3 meals and a snack. It just fits me and my schedule better. Do what is best for you to stay on track.

LolBroScience

No, it is not ALL about calories in/out. Anyone stating this is not up on their science. Calories do count but there are many other things that also count. Our bodies are very complex in how they use what we eat.

I Disagree. Saying it's only calories in/out is relevant, because whilst there is more complexity to it than that, the vast majority of users on MFP only need to worry about energy intake.

Elite athlete? Worry about macronutrients
Severely obese? Worry about macronutrients
Metabolic conditions? Worry about macronutrients
Severe energy deficit? Worry about macronutrients
Trying to 'bulk up'? Worry about protein intake and energy surplus
Trying to lose body fat? Maintain energy deficit and perhaps consider protein intake.

well... that leaves quite a bit of grey area no?

VegasFit

I do four to six because I'm a snacker so that style of eating works for me but I think you can be successful either way. Just do what works for you.

kbmnurse

I eat 5-6 smaller meals daily. I have to have the full feeling. Once I start to feel hunger I make poor food choices. Smaller more frequent better for me.

RedneckCrazy430

Since I went from 3 meals and a snack to 3 meals & 3 snacks, Ive been doing great. Im not hungry. I dont binge eat and no late night time snacking.

cwolfman13

For the average Joe/Jane, nutrient timing doesn't matter substantially. You aren't going to substantially "stoke the fires of your metabolism" by eating more frequently...like maybe a few calories. Really, for the average Joe it's more about adherence than anything else...if eating 6 times per day results in greater dietary adherence then you are winning

Nutrient timing is more important to fitness and training and becomes even more important if you are a competitive athlete...which is what a lot of these "studies" are done on, not the average Joe out there trying lose a little weight and improve their fitness.

Rainboots80

I eat 4

serindipte

I usually go with two real meals, breakfast is usually small enough it could pass as a snack at 80-130 calories. Then a snack about 3 most days and a graze period in the evening with several small things (I am actually trying to stop doing as much of that). Still watching my overall calories, though, maintaining that deficit and losing weight.

ngyoung

eating often changing your metabolism is false. It is not a matter of cals in vs out, it is mainly about controlling hunger and triggering your body to fuel itself with its fat stores.

More recent studies that I have been hearing is that more people are finding success doing to opposite of what you're asking. Doing intermittent fasting. Skipping a meal, usually breakfast or a whole day even then feasting. The common misconception is that it just causes you to just over eat later but when tested subjects often still maintained a caloric deficit.

suremeansyes

I generally do 3 meals and a couple snacks. I get hungry every 2-3 hours or so, it works for me.

bigmamabird

I find that if I eat a lot of little meals rather than three main ones, I'm less likely to get hungry in between and therefore make a bad food choice. I have very little willpower and if I get hungry the first thing I'm going to want to reach for is some prepackaged, processed conveinence food rather than something nutritious and healthy.

ndj1979

meal timing and metabolism is a myth …eat one meal, three meal, six meals, or 24 meals spaced over one hour each and the impact to metabolism is zero...