Eating six 'mini' meals instead of three regular meals
Replies
-
While true when it comes to weight loss, the suggestion was made because OP eats TOO LITTLE.Hi guys, basically the nutritionist at my gym told me that I was eating way too little and that I should eat four meals a day + snacks. So today I started with a plan of eating six mini meals. Can anyone tell me if this is the way to go?
He's a "bro", & has no idea what he's talking about.
All that matters is if you reach your caloric daily intake... and your macros before you go to sleep at night.... and get 8 hours of rest, at least.
Eat when YOU want, what you want, and how you want.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
this.
there is a reason why bodybuilders eat regularly through the day- and set alarms to wake up and eat.
Mostly it is because they volume of food is almost impossible to eat in a condensed time frame or only 3 meals.
THere is that whole spread the surplus out thing- but reality is when you have to more food- eating MORE often and eating higher calorie foods is the way to go.
is it necessary ? no. I mostly eat in the afternoons/evenings- I bulk/cut just fine. BUT- when I'm bulking- I start eating sooner so I can fit my food in.
I missed originally where she wasn't eating enough (I read this first thing in the morning) so I agree that would be one way to ensure she eats more calories.
Yes, part of the reason why some bodybuilders followed the 6 meals a day (or more) was for bulking/sheer amount of food, but that wasn't the only reason. It was still suggested, even on a cut. I certainly wasn't eating anywhere near a huge amount of food on my cut and my trainer still had me on 6 meals a day. It was also believed it raised metabolism as well.0 -
On some days, I eat one giant meal! :bigsmile:0
-
While true when it comes to weight loss, the suggestion was made because OP eats TOO LITTLE.Hi guys, basically the nutritionist at my gym told me that I was eating way too little and that I should eat four meals a day + snacks. So today I started with a plan of eating six mini meals. Can anyone tell me if this is the way to go?
He's a "bro", & has no idea what he's talking about.
All that matters is if you reach your caloric daily intake... and your macros before you go to sleep at night.... and get 8 hours of rest, at least.
Eat when YOU want, what you want, and how you want.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
this.
there is a reason why bodybuilders eat regularly through the day- and set alarms to wake up and eat.
Mostly it is because they volume of food is almost impossible to eat in a condensed time frame or only 3 meals.
THere is that whole spread the surplus out thing- but reality is when you have to more food- eating MORE often and eating higher calorie foods is the way to go.
is it necessary ? no. I mostly eat in the afternoons/evenings- I bulk/cut just fine. BUT- when I'm bulking- I start eating sooner so I can fit my food in.
I missed originally where she wasn't eating enough (I read this first thing in the morning) so I agree that would be one way to ensure she eats more calories.
Yes, part of the reason why some bodybuilders followed the 6 meals a day (or more) was for bulking/sheer amount of food, but that wasn't the only reason. It was still suggested, even on a cut. I certainly wasn't eating anywhere near a huge amount of food on my cut and my trainer still had me on 6 meals a day. It was also believed it raised metabolism as well.
well in a surplus- you want to try to even the surplus out- there is a whole bunch of science goopty goop that supports muscle growth with the constant even surplus with as few food spikes as possible. that's not my strong suit- I just am aware that is another reason why they do it.0 -
Like everyone is saying, its really about what works for you. My mother is a mini meals person and I personally have to have a big lunch and dinner to keep myself satisfied. If you're reaching your calorie intake every day, thats what matters. Do what feels right!
0 -
yes, 6 small meals a day will balance you out
So will 1 big meal.0 -
If you want actual nutrition advice, seek a registered dietitian, not a gym nutritionist.
^^^ This.
Some people find grazing helps with compliance but otherwise it's calories in, calories out.0 -
I've always had a preference for several smaller meals/snacks throughout the day. I find that if I eat a small portion when I'm hungry I eat less in the long run. Some people can't adjust to this, preferring to stick with the "3 squares a day" routine. Whatever works for you is the right thing to do. Regardless of their credentials, not every so-called professional gives accurate advice every time, and seldom do they take your own personal preferences or circumstances into account. Similarly, not all the free advice in the forums is necessarily right for you. I always find it best to look at all the information offered, do your on-line research, and then formulate your own opinions based on the overall results. As long as you're not ignoring any potentially harmful medical conditions, you should never make lifestyle decisions on the basis of any one person's advice or opinions.0
-
I think he suggested that because most doctors will tell you that. My Cardiologist suggested it to me when he wanted me to lose weight because of my Afib. He said it keeps your metabolism going throughout the day and you don't feel hungry. I also have MS so my neurologist also would like me to lose weight because she said I will have a better quality of life for longer if I am not carrying the extra weight around with me.
So like one of the earlier posters said I eat 3 fairly big caloric meals with 3 snacks in between. Snacks being nuts, fruit, vegetables, chicken, tuna, protein shake, ....GOOD caloric snacks.
Hope that helps. Good Luck! :flowerforyou:0 -
I'm surprised so many people are against the small meals thing. It has worked beautifully for me, and I was put on the plan by a professional. At first I thought a 250 calorie meal sounded absolutely ludicrous, but I adjusted to it pretty easily, and there are way more filling options out there than you realize. I don't agree that bombing your system with one or two huge calorie intakes for the day is the best route, personally. I like to think of it just like getting the best fuel mileage out of your car- if you give it a steady dose of energy (gas) without hitting a bunch of stops, you get the best out of it. It's the same with your body. Steady doses of energy make it function most efficiently. I eat 3 200-300 calorie meals per day and add in snacks as I can to meet my daily goals, and I lost 37 pounds in about 4 months sticking to this.0
-
I'm surprised so many people are against the small meals thing. It has worked beautifully for me, and I was put on the plan by a professional. At first I thought a 250 calorie meal sounded absolutely ludicrous, but I adjusted to it pretty easily, and there are way more filling options out there than you realize. I don't agree that bombing your system with one or two huge calorie intakes for the day is the best route, personally. I like to think of it just like getting the best fuel mileage out of your car- if you give it a steady dose of energy (gas) without hitting a bunch of stops, you get the best out of it. It's the same with your body. Steady doses of energy make it function most efficiently. I eat 3 200-300 calorie meals per day and add in snacks as I can to meet my daily goals, and I lost 37 pounds in about 4 months sticking to this.
I don think anyone is "against" it. Most are saying do what works for you. I also like the 6 meals a day but realize that it doesn't work well for everyone.
The gas analogy is off. How often you fill it doesn't affect your gas mileage. How you drive it does. You don't get better gas mileage out of your car if you put a small amount of gas several times a day over filling the tank.0 -
Disclaimer: I have diabetes.
With that out of the way, I eat about every 3 hours during the day. I've made my meals a little lighter and have bumped up the calories in my snacks because it helps to even out my blood sugar and helps me to sustain my energy. The con? It does take more prep work. I spend about 30ish minutes every night preparing my breakfast, lunch, and 2 work snacks. I weigh everything, portion it out, and have it ready for the next day. Also, some people enjoy eating bigger meals, or skipping breakfast, or whatever.
You don't *have* to eat any particular way. You should do what works for your lifestyle and makes your body feel good. Since changing my eating, I cannot tolerate heavy meals without having some...er...nasty side effects.0 -
I'm surprised so many people are against the small meals thing. It has worked beautifully for me, and I was put on the plan by a professional. At first I thought a 250 calorie meal sounded absolutely ludicrous, but I adjusted to it pretty easily, and there are way more filling options out there than you realize. I don't agree that bombing your system with one or two huge calorie intakes for the day is the best route, personally. I like to think of it just like getting the best fuel mileage out of your car- if you give it a steady dose of energy (gas) without hitting a bunch of stops, you get the best out of it. It's the same with your body. Steady doses of energy make it function most efficiently. I eat 3 200-300 calorie meals per day and add in snacks as I can to meet my daily goals, and I lost 37 pounds in about 4 months sticking to this.
I don think anyone is "against" it. Most are saying do what works for you. I also like the 6 meals a day but realize that it doesn't work well for everyone.
The gas analogy is off. How often you fill it doesn't affect your gas mileage. How you drive it does. You don't get better gas mileage out of your car if you put a small amount of gas several times a day over filling the tank.
I think she was talking acceleration, not filling the tank.
However, I still think the analogy is flawed. Our body has mechanisms in place to even out the spikes and dips that happen in our consumption. That's why we store fat to begin with -- to maintain that level of energy input required for energy output.
Regarding what I've bolded, above -- there really is nothing wrong with doing that. In fact, that's what the human body is actually used to, and we have a number of mechanisms in place for handling it. Not only was such feast/famine cycle common while we were still hunter-gatherers (which actually had more extreme feast/famine cycles sometimes), but also once we started farming -- traditionally, farmers would have a big breakfast, a big dinner, and maybe a light lunch...if there was that much food to be had (the end of winter meant food was quite scarce, so rationing was not unheard of), and that doesn't even get into famine years.
Where we started having problems with this setup, I think, was more recently, when the content of our diets shifted from a more balanced (ie - something like 40c/30p/30f) or fat-heavy (ie - 40% or even higher percentages of fat, depending on local staples) to one that is decidedly carb heavy (ie - the USDA recommendation of 50% carbs or more). The reliance on carbohydrates as a primary fuel source brings with it spikes and drops in blood sugar and insulin (yes, this happens in healthy people, too). The more you eat at once, the more drastic the (potential) spike and the more insulin your body has to put out to modulate that glucose spike. The six meal a day thing is a measure to modulate that spike, as well, by eating less at one sitting. It also serves to schedule an eating time right about the time insulin and glucose are both at their lowest after eating, which is commonly associated with "getting hungry" due to the drop in glucose and insulin in the blood stream (the shift doesn't have to be outside the bounds of normal -- the relative difference is enough to trigger the brain's hunger signals).
No one's against doing it that way. The body is, of course, remarkably adaptable. People here are against the idea that it's the "only" or the "best" way of eating, because it really doesn't matter. The body is perfectly capable of going several hours, and even a couple of days, without food with no health ramifications (there are actually studies that suggest that certain forms of intermittent fasting are beneficial). What matters at the end of the day is what is sustainable for the individual.0 -
My Dr. told me something similar. He believes that if you eat smaller amounts more often, it keeps your metabolism up.
Now PLEASE don't jump on me anyone....just saying what I was told. I don't subscribe to the theory myself.0 -
I eat small amounts all day long but you don't have to do that to lose weight. I do it so I'm never hungry.
Do what works for you and eat chocolate when you like as long as you control the total calories you eat over the week.
It's not a stupid idea but it isn't necessary to lose weight.0 -
I'm surprised so many people are against the small meals thing. It has worked beautifully for me, and I was put on the plan by a professional. At first I thought a 250 calorie meal sounded absolutely ludicrous, but I adjusted to it pretty easily, and there are way more filling options out there than you realize. I don't agree that bombing your system with one or two huge calorie intakes for the day is the best route, personally. I like to think of it just like getting the best fuel mileage out of your car- if you give it a steady dose of energy (gas) without hitting a bunch of stops, you get the best out of it. It's the same with your body. Steady doses of energy make it function most efficiently. I eat 3 200-300 calorie meals per day and add in snacks as I can to meet my daily goals, and I lost 37 pounds in about 4 months sticking to this.
I don think anyone is "against" it. Most are saying do what works for you. I also like the 6 meals a day but realize that it doesn't work well for everyone.
The gas analogy is off. How often you fill it doesn't affect your gas mileage. How you drive it does. You don't get better gas mileage out of your car if you put a small amount of gas several times a day over filling the tank.
I think she was talking acceleration, not filling the tank.
However, I still think the analogy is flawed. Our body has mechanisms in place to even out the spikes and dips that happen in our consumption. That's why we store fat to begin with -- to maintain that level of energy input required for energy output.
Regarding what I've bolded, above -- there really is nothing wrong with doing that. In fact, that's what the human body is actually used to, and we have a number of mechanisms in place for handling it. Not only was such feast/famine cycle common while we were still hunter-gatherers (which actually had more extreme feast/famine cycles sometimes), but also once we started farming -- traditionally, farmers would have a big breakfast, a big dinner, and maybe a light lunch...if there was that much food to be had (the end of winter meant food was quite scarce, so rationing was not unheard of), and that doesn't even get into famine years.
Where we started having problems with this setup, I think, was more recently, when the content of our diets shifted from a more balanced (ie - something like 40c/30p/30f) or fat-heavy (ie - 40% or even higher percentages of fat, depending on local staples) to one that is decidedly carb heavy (ie - the USDA recommendation of 50% carbs or more). The reliance on carbohydrates as a primary fuel source brings with it spikes and drops in blood sugar and insulin (yes, this happens in healthy people, too). The more you eat at once, the more drastic the (potential) spike and the more insulin your body has to put out to modulate that glucose spike. The six meal a day thing is a measure to modulate that spike, as well, by eating less at one sitting. It also serves to schedule an eating time right about the time insulin and glucose are both at their lowest after eating, which is commonly associated with "getting hungry" due to the drop in glucose and insulin in the blood stream (the shift doesn't have to be outside the bounds of normal -- the relative difference is enough to trigger the brain's hunger signals).
No one's against doing it that way. The body is, of course, remarkably adaptable. People here are against the idea that it's the "only" or the "best" way of eating, because it really doesn't matter. The body is perfectly capable of going several hours, and even a couple of days, without food with no health ramifications (there are actually studies that suggest that certain forms of intermittent fasting are beneficial). What matters at the end of the day is what is sustainable for the individual.
I understood she meant acceleration, I just meant if we are going to look at it a car and fuel tank, it doesn't apply like that. That it would be similar to filling the tank.0 -
Thanks everyone for your input! I think I will try to stick to the 6 mini meals for a few days to see how it goes...
So far today I have had:
All Bran + Skimmed Milk + Flax Seeds (206cal)
Muller Light (99cal)
Cashew Nuts (25gr 155cal)
Pear (42cal)
Warburton's Sandwich thin + Roasted Chicken Breast (364cal)
Calories left: 373
It's currently 6:20pm and I'm feeling quite satisfied.
I'm not a fan of chocolate anyway to be fair, I could go (and have gone) months without even eating chocolate. I'm more of a salt addict (hence the salty Cashew nuts).0 -
If you want actual nutrition advice, seek a registered dietitian, not a gym nutritionist.
^^^ This.
Some people find grazing helps with compliance but otherwise it's calories in, calories out.
^^^
Agree - you have to take into consideration the resume of the person giving you the advise. A personal trainer at a gym with NO Secondary education on anything physical isn't someone I'd be taking dietary advise from, for all you know this person was certified online.
See your doctor for actual medical advise or research some medical case studies.
For myself, I've been doing the 4-5 "eats" a day thing with each "eat" between 150-400 calories. I'm OK with doing this for an event but I don't see myself being able to live like this forever.0 -
I think different things work for different people and you have to find what's right for you.As for me I eat breakfast,lunch and dinner,2 hrs after each meal l have a snack nothing big( apple,carrots,celery etc..) just a lil something it usually helps me not to over eat and I don't feel as hungry throughout the day...0
-
I think she was talking acceleration, not filling the tank.
However, I still think the analogy is flawed. Our body has mechanisms in place to even out the spikes and dips that happen in our consumption. That's why we store fat to begin with -- to maintain that level of energy input required for energy output.
Regarding what I've bolded, above -- there really is nothing wrong with doing that. In fact, that's what the human body is actually used to, and we have a number of mechanisms in place for handling it. Not only was such feast/famine cycle common while we were still hunter-gatherers (which actually had more extreme feast/famine cycles sometimes), but also once we started farming -- traditionally, farmers would have a big breakfast, a big dinner, and maybe a light lunch...if there was that much food to be had (the end of winter meant food was quite scarce, so rationing was not unheard of), and that doesn't even get into famine years.
Where we started having problems with this setup, I think, was more recently, when the content of our diets shifted from a more balanced (ie - something like 40c/30p/30f) or fat-heavy (ie - 40% or even higher percentages of fat, depending on local staples) to one that is decidedly carb heavy (ie - the USDA recommendation of 50% carbs or more). The reliance on carbohydrates as a primary fuel source brings with it spikes and drops in blood sugar and insulin (yes, this happens in healthy people, too). The more you eat at once, the more drastic the (potential) spike and the more insulin your body has to put out to modulate that glucose spike. The six meal a day thing is a measure to modulate that spike, as well, by eating less at one sitting. It also serves to schedule an eating time right about the time insulin and glucose are both at their lowest after eating, which is commonly associated with "getting hungry" due to the drop in glucose and insulin in the blood stream (the shift doesn't have to be outside the bounds of normal -- the relative difference is enough to trigger the brain's hunger signals).
No one's against doing it that way. The body is, of course, remarkably adaptable. People here are against the idea that it's the "only" or the "best" way of eating, because it really doesn't matter. The body is perfectly capable of going several hours, and even a couple of days, without food with no health ramifications (there are actually studies that suggest that certain forms of intermittent fasting are beneficial). What matters at the end of the day is what is sustainable for the individual.
I guess I did a pretty bad job of explaining why I think it works for me. Sorry! Just wanted to say your post was full of interesting information for me though, and makes a lot of sense, so thanks 0 -
Bump0
-
Six small meals is legit, so is 3 regular meals, so is 2 larger meals and so is 1 huge meal. He gave you good advice but did not give you the big picture. It's just one strategy of many that can work for you. You have to try them all and decide which one fits your lifestyle and personal preference.0
-
-
I just had this conversation with a coworker last week. He's pretty well-versed in fitness and nutrition being a former strongman competitor, but he's a believer in the theory that more frequent mini-meals keeps your metabolism fired up versus one or two larger meals a day, a la IF, even if total calories are the same for both.
I argued that the science doesn't support any change in metabolic rate based on meal frequency. He asked for some scientific links to studies that support this claim, but I don't know of any. Can anyone provide links to actual peer-reviewed studies on this subject? Not magazine articles. I'd like to provide some scientific proof one way or the other. Thanks!0 -
I just had this conversation with a coworker last week. He's pretty well-versed in fitness and nutrition being a former strongman competitor, but he's a believer in the theory that more frequent mini-meals keeps your metabolism fired up versus one or two larger meals a day, a la IF, even if total calories are the same for both.
I argued that the science doesn't support any change in metabolic rate based on meal frequency. He asked for some scientific links to studies that support this claim, but I don't know of any. Can anyone provide links to actual peer-reviewed studies on this subject? Not magazine articles. I'd like to provide some scientific proof one way or the other. Thanks!
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/820577-meal-frequency-rev-up-that-furnace-lol
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007
0 -
I feel like people are over thinking it. My "5-6 meals" really look like a regular 3 meals and a snack or two.
If you're eating too little, maybe you should keep your 3 meals the same and add 2-3 snacks during the day. What could be bad about that??
My snacks (when I'm being healthy...) are typically a piece of fruit, some veggies with hummus, a yogurt, or some nuts and dried fruit. I just need a little extra something mid-morning and mid-afternoon to get through the day.0 -
I feel like people are over thinking it.
Yep...
Don't major in the minor.0 -
I feel like people are over thinking it. My "5-6 meals" really look like a regular 3 meals and a snack or two.
If you're eating too little, maybe you should keep your 3 meals the same and add 2-3 snacks during the day. What could be bad about that??
My snacks (when I'm being healthy...) are typically a piece of fruit, some veggies with hummus, a yogurt, or some nuts and dried fruit. I just need a little extra something mid-morning and mid-afternoon to get through the day.
This. I don't like snacking, but if I were having trouble eating enough it seems like a good approach.
(I don't like snacking FOR ME. I'm sure the number of meals that work best is a personal thing.)0 -
I just had this conversation with a coworker last week. He's pretty well-versed in fitness and nutrition being a former strongman competitor, but he's a believer in the theory that more frequent mini-meals keeps your metabolism fired up versus one or two larger meals a day, a la IF, even if total calories are the same for both.
I argued that the science doesn't support any change in metabolic rate based on meal frequency. He asked for some scientific links to studies that support this claim, but I don't know of any. Can anyone provide links to actual peer-reviewed studies on this subject? Not magazine articles. I'd like to provide some scientific proof one way or the other. Thanks!
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/820577-meal-frequency-rev-up-that-furnace-lol
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007
Thank you! This was exactly what I was looking for! You rock!0 -
My only input: I eat a piece of dark (72%) chocolate dang near every day, and I've lost 55lbs.0
-
I eat 250-300 cals/meal 6 times a day and it works wonders for me. It works for some but others find it difficult to manage. 20 lbs. down of the baby weight in just under 5 weeks.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions