Why you might need to rethink eating 6 meals per day!
MeMyCatsandI
Posts: 704 Member
We all know there is constant bickering back and forth on MFP about meal frequency. There are die-hards who eat many small meals and those who practice IF. Here's a good article that suggests that all those mini-meals you're eating are not helping you. Of course, its still really about what works best for the individual and his/her lifestyle. But at the very least, this should help show that people who choose to skip meals, fast, etc. aren't gonna up and die. And actually, they may be better off than you believe! BTW: It's long. But I suggest you read it all. Especially before you post your comment.
The article below is copied and pasted from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jj-virgin/small-meals_b_5508549.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Why Frequent Small Meals Can Stall Fast, Lasting Fat Loss
A study recently published in the journal Hepatology increased caloric intake of 36 lean, healthy men a whopping 40 percent for six weeks.
These men received those increased calories through meal size or meal frequency. In other words, some men ate bigger meals, and others got those excess calories through smaller meals and snacking.
When you increase calories, especially as the high-fat/high-sugar or high-sugar foods these participants ate, you'll gain weight. Indeed, both groups did.
Here's where it gets interesting. Independent of caloric content and body weight gain, meal frequency increased liver and abdominal fat; increasing meal size did not. "nacking, a common feature in the Western diet, independently contributes to hepatic steatosis [fatty liver] and obesity," researchers concluded.
Meal frequency becomes a polarizing topic within fitness and nutrition camps. Advocates argue snacks or "mini meals" throughout the day can curb appetite, stabilize blood sugar, and help you eat less during meals. One popular fat-loss program promises you "will constantly be eating, four meals or meal replacements (soups, smoothies, shakes) and three snacks a day, over a six-week program."
Yet studies show no advantage to frequent grazing. One eight-week study in The British Journal of Nutrition divided 16 obese men and women into two camps. Both received the same number of calories daily. One group ate those calories as three meals and three snacks. The other ate them as three meals but no snacks.
Being a reduced-calorie diet, both groups lost weight. However, researchers found no fat loss advantage to eating more often.
Studies support what I've found over my nearly three decades as a celebrity nutrition and fitness expert: Frequently grazing permits you to eat more than you need and sabotages fast, lasting fat loss.
One in the journal Obesity (Silver Spring) found increasing meal frequency from three to six each day could increase hunger and your desire to eat.
That's because eating raises your insulin levels. "Insulin actually prevents fat burning," says Jonny Bowden, Ph.D., in his book Living Low Carb. "By lowering insulin, you open the doors of the fat cells and allow the body to release fat."
Logically, snacking and mini meals keep insulin levels jacked up and your fat-burning doors locked. Plus, let's face it. You're probably not eating wild salmon and sautéed spinach as a snack or mini meal. Instead, you'll reach for convenient, processed foods usually filled with sugar and other empty-nutrient carbohydrates.
Taking a food break between meals gives your body a well-deserved break to reach into those fat stores and burn it for fuel. Mini-meals and snacking don't provide that opportunity.
Many smaller-meal plans also permit nightly snacking, further potentially stalling fat loss. One study in the American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative, and Comparative Physiology found young women who snack at nighttime prevent fat breakdown and increase their obesity risks. One reason: butter pecan, not buttered Brussels sprouts, more often constitutes 11 p.m. snacking.
Nix the mini meal mentality and focus on substantive, healthy meals. Ideally, you'll space these meals 4-6 hours apart, and you'll stop eating about three hours before bed. That allows your body plenty of time throughout the day and while you're sleeping to reach into your fat stores.
That might sound impossible if you're currently constantly grazing. I suggest gradually working towards four hours between meals and then see if you can go longer. I'm not entirely anti-snacking, but your goal should be to eat enough at every meal so snacking becomes occasional, not a habit.
To do this, you'll focus on optimal protein, healthy fats, and fiber at every meal so you stabilize blood sugar and create hormonal harmony to reduce hunger and cravings.
One study in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found a high-protein breakfast curbs your hunger hormone ghrelin, reduces gastric emptying, and increases cholecystokinin (CCK) that tells your brain you're full.
Likewise, healthy fats like avocado and olive oil increase satiety. Fiber-rich foods such as legumes, quinoa, and leafy greens control glucose levels, reducing blood sugar fluctuations that lead to cravings and hunger.
Especially if you've hit a plateau or otherwise can't ditch those last stubborn pounds, try my meal-frequency challenge and see if three substantial, well-designed meals daily help reach your fat-loss goals.
The article below is copied and pasted from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jj-virgin/small-meals_b_5508549.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Why Frequent Small Meals Can Stall Fast, Lasting Fat Loss
A study recently published in the journal Hepatology increased caloric intake of 36 lean, healthy men a whopping 40 percent for six weeks.
These men received those increased calories through meal size or meal frequency. In other words, some men ate bigger meals, and others got those excess calories through smaller meals and snacking.
When you increase calories, especially as the high-fat/high-sugar or high-sugar foods these participants ate, you'll gain weight. Indeed, both groups did.
Here's where it gets interesting. Independent of caloric content and body weight gain, meal frequency increased liver and abdominal fat; increasing meal size did not. "nacking, a common feature in the Western diet, independently contributes to hepatic steatosis [fatty liver] and obesity," researchers concluded.
Meal frequency becomes a polarizing topic within fitness and nutrition camps. Advocates argue snacks or "mini meals" throughout the day can curb appetite, stabilize blood sugar, and help you eat less during meals. One popular fat-loss program promises you "will constantly be eating, four meals or meal replacements (soups, smoothies, shakes) and three snacks a day, over a six-week program."
Yet studies show no advantage to frequent grazing. One eight-week study in The British Journal of Nutrition divided 16 obese men and women into two camps. Both received the same number of calories daily. One group ate those calories as three meals and three snacks. The other ate them as three meals but no snacks.
Being a reduced-calorie diet, both groups lost weight. However, researchers found no fat loss advantage to eating more often.
Studies support what I've found over my nearly three decades as a celebrity nutrition and fitness expert: Frequently grazing permits you to eat more than you need and sabotages fast, lasting fat loss.
One in the journal Obesity (Silver Spring) found increasing meal frequency from three to six each day could increase hunger and your desire to eat.
That's because eating raises your insulin levels. "Insulin actually prevents fat burning," says Jonny Bowden, Ph.D., in his book Living Low Carb. "By lowering insulin, you open the doors of the fat cells and allow the body to release fat."
Logically, snacking and mini meals keep insulin levels jacked up and your fat-burning doors locked. Plus, let's face it. You're probably not eating wild salmon and sautéed spinach as a snack or mini meal. Instead, you'll reach for convenient, processed foods usually filled with sugar and other empty-nutrient carbohydrates.
Taking a food break between meals gives your body a well-deserved break to reach into those fat stores and burn it for fuel. Mini-meals and snacking don't provide that opportunity.
Many smaller-meal plans also permit nightly snacking, further potentially stalling fat loss. One study in the American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative, and Comparative Physiology found young women who snack at nighttime prevent fat breakdown and increase their obesity risks. One reason: butter pecan, not buttered Brussels sprouts, more often constitutes 11 p.m. snacking.
Nix the mini meal mentality and focus on substantive, healthy meals. Ideally, you'll space these meals 4-6 hours apart, and you'll stop eating about three hours before bed. That allows your body plenty of time throughout the day and while you're sleeping to reach into your fat stores.
That might sound impossible if you're currently constantly grazing. I suggest gradually working towards four hours between meals and then see if you can go longer. I'm not entirely anti-snacking, but your goal should be to eat enough at every meal so snacking becomes occasional, not a habit.
To do this, you'll focus on optimal protein, healthy fats, and fiber at every meal so you stabilize blood sugar and create hormonal harmony to reduce hunger and cravings.
One study in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found a high-protein breakfast curbs your hunger hormone ghrelin, reduces gastric emptying, and increases cholecystokinin (CCK) that tells your brain you're full.
Likewise, healthy fats like avocado and olive oil increase satiety. Fiber-rich foods such as legumes, quinoa, and leafy greens control glucose levels, reducing blood sugar fluctuations that lead to cravings and hunger.
Especially if you've hit a plateau or otherwise can't ditch those last stubborn pounds, try my meal-frequency challenge and see if three substantial, well-designed meals daily help reach your fat-loss goals.
0
Replies
-
I'm starting to think my posts are invisible. :frown:0
-
I've read this before. Most people who advocate eating more often tend to say something like "It keeps your blood sugar more level through the day". Studies (like this one) have suggested that, yes, it levels out your blood sugar, but at a consistently higher level. This in combination with the studies on fasting suggest that our bodies aren't made to be eating all the time. However, all this research is fairly new, so I'll be keeping an eye on the continued research that is sure to be coming out.
Also, for people not calorie counting, eating more often tends to just lead to eating more without realizing it.0 -
Not invisible :flowerforyou:
I am not a mini meal person, so it doesn't really effect me. I do think everyone is different and needs to do what is healthy and sustainable for themselves. Interesting read though.0 -
I'm interested but wow, I don't have 20 minutes to read a novel during my lunch break.0
-
I eat 5 meals a day. Not because I think that magically boosts my metabolism or makes it so I lose weight faster compared to if I had eaten the same amount of food in two meals...no. I eat 5 meals a day because that is what makes me most comfortable and satiated throughout the day.
Its personal preference and no in my case I don't have to rethink it.
You seem to be using a study in which people ate over maintenance to compare to a group of people who are eating under maintenance. I don't see the relevance.0 -
i eat small meals 6-8 times a day for the most part. simply because of appetite.
on days where i know i am going out for dinner, i eat less or not at all to meet whatever my caloric needs are.
long lasting weight loss is staying in a deficit, doesnt matter how you do that.0 -
I eat 5 meals a day. Not because I think that magically boosts my metabolism or makes it so I lose weight faster compared to if I had eaten the same amount of food in two meals...no. I eat 5 meals a day because that is what makes me most comfortable and satiated throughout the day.
Its personal preference and no in my case I don't have to rethink it.
You seem to be using a study in which people ate over maintenance to compare to a group of people who are eating under maintenance. I don't see the relevance.
I can understand how you missed it in that wall of text, but you're incorrect:Yet studies show no advantage to frequent grazing. One eight-week study in The British Journal of Nutrition divided 16 obese men and women into two camps. Both received the same number of calories daily. One group ate those calories as three meals and three snacks. The other ate them as three meals but no snacks.
I believe in CICO, but I find these kinds of studies interesting.0 -
I eat healthy snacks mid-morning and mid-afternoon. This works for me if I go to long without eating I can get very hungry and that is when I make poor food choices. I did try eating every 4 hours and that got complicated and I was really hungry near to meal time. All information can be helpful.0
-
This simply suggests that people are unaware of their calorie intake. If someone is logging or otherwise keeping a pretty good generally tally on calories consumed, this shouldn't be an issue regardless of how many times per day you eat.
I would say the vast majority of people don't have a clue as to how many calories they are consuming so it would stand to reason that if they increased meal frequency they would also be increasing energy consumption.0 -
I'm starting to think my posts are invisible. :frown:
Not invisible. Just largely pointless.0 -
You seem to be using a study in which people ate over maintenance to compare to a group of people who are eating under maintenance. I don't see the relevance.
I think it was just saying that in the first study mentioned, everyone ate over their maintenance calories, yes, but the people who spaced their eating times into more constant meals/snacks, had more fat gain. At least that's what I think it said, if I read it right.
Whereas in the second study mentioned, both groups ate the same amount of calories under maintenance, and the ones who ate only three meals a day lost more fat than the ones who ate more often.0 -
I eat 5 meals a day. Not because I think that magically boosts my metabolism or makes it so I lose weight faster compared to if I had eaten the same amount of food in two meals...no. I eat 5 meals a day because that is what makes me most comfortable and satiated throughout the day.
Its personal preference and no in my case I don't have to rethink it.
You seem to be using a study in which people ate over maintenance to compare to a group of people who are eating under maintenance. I don't see the relevance.
I can understand how you missed it in that wall of text, but you're incorrect:Yet studies show no advantage to frequent grazing. One eight-week study in The British Journal of Nutrition divided 16 obese men and women into two camps. Both received the same number of calories daily. One group ate those calories as three meals and three snacks. The other ate them as three meals but no snacks.
I believe in CICO, but I find these kinds of studies interesting.
I am not incorrect you misunderstood my post. When I said "a group eating below maintenance" the group I was referring to was us. The study was two groups both eating ABOVE maintenance. I was saying it was a mistake to suggest a study of people above maintenance would be meaningful for those below maintenance.A study recently published in the journal Hepatology increased caloric intake of 36 lean, healthy men a whopping 40 percent for six weeks. These men received those increased calories through meal size or meal frequency. In other words, some men ate bigger meals, and others got those excess calories through smaller meals and snacking.
I did not say both groups didn't receive the same calorically, I said they both ate over maintenance because they did. The study was a study of people eating over maintenance. You cannot just assume the same applies to people eating under maintenance.0 -
I think it probably depends on the person. I get my blood sugar checked regularly and am being monitored closely by my doctor and a nutritionist during weight loss. I'm also hypothyroid so I might have to do something different from what a totally healthy person would do. Some people do better spreading out the food over the day; others do better with three meals exactly. If I've learned anything at all through this weight loss journey it is that people are drastically different and cannot expect to implement a one size fits all approach. If you're doing something and aren't getting the expected results then by all means try something else.0
-
I eat every few hours (smaller amounts) because I am pregnant and will turn into a crazy person if I don't. :blushing: But I agree others can do just fine on 3 meals a day or whatever their preference is.0
-
Thank you for posting this!0
-
Ok, I read the whole thing and am still going with eating between meals. However, my snacks involve fruit, vegetables and other healthy choices, not junk. The paragraph below is from the article and I think it explains more why people who snack have the problems mentioned in the article, far better than the large versus small meals debate. No mater what your style of eating is, what you put in your mouth matters far more than when/how often.
"Logically, snacking and mini meals keep insulin levels jacked up and your fat-burning doors locked. Plus, let's face it. You're probably not eating wild salmon and sautéed spinach as a snack or mini meal. Instead, you'll reach for convenient, processed foods usually filled with sugar and other empty-nutrient carbohydrates."0 -
define eating 5-6 meals a day...that's where I always wonder wtf...
is that snacks? or is the day broken up into 300-400 calories each time (given they are eating 2000 a day)
It doesn't matter when you eat...or if you eat frequently or infrequently...as long as you are not in a surplus you won't gain weight...
CICO.0 -
I'm interested but wow, I don't have 20 minutes to read a novel during my lunch break.
732 words equates to a novel and takes 20 minutes to read?
Based on the average reading speed of an adult it should take 3 minutes, tops. Based on your own admission of 20 minutes to read the above, you are substandard to the average 1st grade reading level. Congrats.0 -
I eat 5 meals a day. Not because I think that magically boosts my metabolism or makes it so I lose weight faster compared to if I had eaten the same amount of food in two meals...no. I eat 5 meals a day because that is what makes me most comfortable and satiated throughout the day.
Its personal preference and no in my case I don't have to rethink it.
You seem to be using a study in which people ate over maintenance to compare to a group of people who are eating under maintenance. I don't see the relevance.
I can understand how you missed it in that wall of text, but you're incorrect:Yet studies show no advantage to frequent grazing. One eight-week study in The British Journal of Nutrition divided 16 obese men and women into two camps. Both received the same number of calories daily. One group ate those calories as three meals and three snacks. The other ate them as three meals but no snacks.
I believe in CICO, but I find these kinds of studies interesting.
I am not incorrect you misunderstood my post. When I said "a group eating below maintenance" the group I was referring to was us. The study was two groups both eating ABOVE maintenance. I was saying it was a mistake to suggest a study of people above maintenance would be meaningful for those below maintenance.A study recently published in the journal Hepatology increased caloric intake of 36 lean, healthy men a whopping 40 percent for six weeks. These men received those increased calories through meal size or meal frequency. In other words, some men ate bigger meals, and others got those excess calories through smaller meals and snacking.
I did not say both groups didn't receive the same calorically, I said they both ate over maintenance because they did. The study was a study of people eating over maintenance. You cannot just assume the same applies to people eating under maintenance.
Apparently, I skimmed too.
I didn't see the first study.
I think the second study is more valid though since they had both groups eating the same amount, but just spaced the eating differently. It's kind of obvious in the first study that if people are eating over maintenance, they will gain weight.0 -
IF 0 -
I, quite naturally, eat a protein/carb breakfast in the morning and about 6 hours later I eat my last meal of the day.
I love to have a large meal and it holds me very well till the following morning.
On weekends, I also have 2 meals-breakfast and dinner-because we eat out on weekends.
I've been doing this for a long time and it works beautifully for me-no health issues and my weight is pretty much at goal (+ or - 5 lbs.). My large main meal keeps me satisfied and not looking to snack.
I never liked snacks or tiny meals.
I'm happy to hear its good for me!0 -
I eat 5 meals a day. Not because I think that magically boosts my metabolism or makes it so I lose weight faster compared to if I had eaten the same amount of food in two meals...no. I eat 5 meals a day because that is what makes me most comfortable and satiated throughout the day.
Its personal preference and no in my case I don't have to rethink it.
You seem to be using a study in which people ate over maintenance to compare to a group of people who are eating under maintenance. I don't see the relevance.
I can understand how you missed it in that wall of text, but you're incorrect:Yet studies show no advantage to frequent grazing. One eight-week study in The British Journal of Nutrition divided 16 obese men and women into two camps. Both received the same number of calories daily. One group ate those calories as three meals and three snacks. The other ate them as three meals but no snacks.
I believe in CICO, but I find these kinds of studies interesting.
I am not incorrect you misunderstood my post. When I said "a group eating below maintenance" the group I was referring to was us. The study was two groups both eating ABOVE maintenance. I was saying it was a mistake to suggest a study of people above maintenance would be meaningful for those below maintenance.A study recently published in the journal Hepatology increased caloric intake of 36 lean, healthy men a whopping 40 percent for six weeks. These men received those increased calories through meal size or meal frequency. In other words, some men ate bigger meals, and others got those excess calories through smaller meals and snacking.
I did not say both groups didn't receive the same calorically, I said they both ate over maintenance because they did. The study was a study of people eating over maintenance. You cannot just assume the same applies to people eating under maintenance.
Apparently, I skimmed too. I didn't see the first study.
I think the second study is more valid though since they had both groups eating the same amount, but just spaced the eating differently. It's kind of obvious in the first study that if people are eating over maintenance, they will gain weight.
But the result of that study was just good ole CICO as far as I can tell, meaning for weight loss meal timing doesn't matter.Being a reduced-calorie diet, both groups lost weight. However, researchers found no fat loss advantage to eating more often.
I'm not saying studies aren't interesting, I'm just meaning there is nothing particularly new here. That result is what you would predict from CICO and CICO is pretty much what MFP is based on and what I think we are all essentially doing here.
The other studies talking about "increased hunger" which is going to be subjective and personal and cannot just be applied to everyone.0 -
1. " However, researchers found no fat loss advantage to eating more often." - okay so what - did they find an actual disadvantage? other than in the surplus group?
2. I eat several small conscious meals (not necessarily snacking or grazing) - I know what I am eating and it is nutrient dense food and I count the calories so I am in a deficit.
3. I take offense to the opinion of the writer that everyone who chooses frequent eating is just mindlessly grazing on junk and therefore will not be able to sustain weight loss. pffft0 -
I eat 5 meals a day. Not because I think that magically boosts my metabolism or makes it so I lose weight faster compared to if I had eaten the same amount of food in two meals...no. I eat 5 meals a day because that is what makes me most comfortable and satiated throughout the day.
Its personal preference and no in my case I don't have to rethink it.
You seem to be using a study in which people ate over maintenance to compare to a group of people who are eating under maintenance. I don't see the relevance.
I can understand how you missed it in that wall of text, but you're incorrect:Yet studies show no advantage to frequent grazing. One eight-week study in The British Journal of Nutrition divided 16 obese men and women into two camps. Both received the same number of calories daily. One group ate those calories as three meals and three snacks. The other ate them as three meals but no snacks.
I believe in CICO, but I find these kinds of studies interesting.
So the TL;DR is: do what works for you?0 -
My mom doesn't eat often; she will skip breakfast but then eat a REALLY large and unhealthy lunch, and a decent-size dinner. On the other hand, I love to eat a bunch of smaller meals because I'm a muncher...if I eat a big breakfast I'm still going to have a snack 2 hours later...I'm weird like that! So I guess it is what you're eating and not how often
Good post! 0 -
Unfortunately the truth of healthy weight loss is pitifully boring.
All things in moderation, get your nutrients, eat at a calorie deficit, exercise for fitness. This is far to boring to hold most peoples attention (I include myself in that most people) so we complicate things and microanalyze things. I might learn new things daily or come to question things I previously thought were true but at the end of the day i will still be eating at a calorie deficit and exercising.0 -
Unfortunately the truth of healthy weight loss is pitifully boring.
Favorite post ever...because it's sadly true!0 -
Eating smaller meals works for me. It helps me avoid binging because I am never starving for food. I do ensure I eat healthy snacks such as fruit/veggies/low fat yogurt etc.. That being said I see a lot of people snacking on what they think is healthy food such as granols bars and such and I can surely see that they would eat their calorie allowance up fairly quick . What people snack on is important but I also believe that doing what works for you is what everyone needs to do.0
-
We had a guest lecturer in a nutrition class whose study wasn't published yet that said the opposite for female Olympic figure skaters. Just yesterday I rewatched the video and was reading thru the notes and slides. I'll post some later.
My problem with the article is the difference between snack vs mini meal and the assumption of junk food.
I still need to read the actual study that they linked.
I'm torn as to what works best for me.0 -
The whole idea that hunger is bad and dangerous and that you should be eating all throughout the day is junk science and has been from the get go.
So are many other dieting "truths". But hey, Big Food makes a killing off perpetuating the myth that the average person needs snacks and "mini-meals" to survive throughout their day. And people who love to eat are only too happy to oblige.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions