Eating 6+ Times/Day vs. Not!

myak623

There has been a lot of debate on here lately regarding the concept of multiple meals per day vs. 3 or less. I have my own thoughts on this, but I wanted to get some opinions based on the following information.

First, let's start off with the following so that there is an understanding of where my question comes from:




Now, before I go any further, let me state that eating 6+ meals or 3 or less meals is a personal preference. I don't think that either are unhealthy. I also think that weight loss results can be had with either approach. However, I don't believe that multiple meals has an effect on metabolism. Link to why I believe this: http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

Ok, on with the question. Given the above diagram, since insulin is elevated during feeding and insulin reduces during periods when not eating, wouldn't it be counterproductive in continuing to keep insulin levels increased at multiple times during the day?

Edited: I think it's important to add that this would be assuming you are still eating at a caloric deficit and you have no other health related issues, i.e. diabetic.

btdublin

Totally agree with you and with Leangains.com

Not sure I fully understand insulin and how it affects people differently, but fasting can work for some people - I am it's new biggest fan!

UponThisRock

Ok, on with the question. Given the above diagram, since insulin is elevated during feeding and insulin reduces during periods when not eating, wouldn't it be counterproductive in continuing to keep insulin levels increased at multiple times during the day?

Assuming calories were the same, with an increased meal frequency, insulin would not rise as high, but there would also be less time for it to be "below baseline" before the next meal comes. So the issue is, at the end of the day/week/month, did total fat usage exceed total fat storage.

Dave198lbs

I will be starting the leangains IF soon. Alan Aragon has some good info on fasting myths and I trust his science. The 6 meal a day idea intially made some common sense to me but I didnt have enough knowledge then to over ride that idea. As to your question about keeing insulin elevated all day, are even all day, also seems common sense but I am not sure of long range effects.

Crimson_

from personal experience i have seen no difference in 5-6 meals a day to 3 larger meals a day(i did each way for 60 days), eating the same thing just changing portion size, so in my opinion assuming you are a healthy adult is that it doesnt matter when you eat your calories....and depending on your goal(if its weight loss) all that matters is calories in<calories out...i havent tried the intermitent fasting, i would like to at some point but i have a pretty physical job so its kinda hard to make it through the day with no food....

KristyJoy123

I've tried both, and there is no noticeable difference in how my weigh was effected. I find that eating 3 meals per day with a small afternoon snack works best for me. I've tried several small meals, and I find that I'm hungry all afternoon if I do that. I like to have a large lunch that keeps me nice and full well into the afternoon, and then I'll have a piece of fruit come 4:00, which will hold me over until dinner at 6. I don't eat much after that, but if I'm really hungry I'll have some toast with a little peanut butter with my sleepy-time tea. I find that it really has no effect on my weight loss or maintenance, depending on what my goal is.

tigersword

It's basically irrelevant. If you keep calorie consumption the same, then fat burning will also be the same. While I don't like keeping insulin raised during the day because I believe there could be detrimental effects in general (due to the way insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and glucagon levels all interact with each other,) at the end of the day, everyone fasts while sleeping. If you keep insulin elevated all day, your insulin and blood glucose still crashes when you sleep, and you still burn an equal amount of fat.

I just see it as a matter of allowing insulin to rise and fall normally, causing less of a crash, rather than keeping it elevated all day, resulting in a more severe crash at night when you finally stop eating.

dirtbaby13

I find that if I eat 3 meals and snacks I have better success and am not starving at any point during the day! Which we all know is a fantstic thing! I truly beleve it's all personal preference so you feel energized and satisfied~


Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

kunibob

I eat probably 6-8 times a day, with three of those being major meals. I prefer to eat that frequently because I have a voracious appetite, and I tend to feel "starving" and overeat if I restrict myself to 3-4 meals. Snacks keep my mood up and keep me sane. Some folks are the opposite -- snacking more makes them hungrier. I don't think the metabolism benefit/detriment from either way (if there is one) outweighs the psychological benefits of doing which one feels better.

myak623

Ok, on with the question. Given the above diagram, since insulin is elevated during feeding and insulin reduces during periods when not eating, wouldn't it be counterproductive in continuing to keep insulin levels increased at multiple times during the day?

Assuming calories were the same, with an increased meal frequency, insulin would not rise as high, but there would also be less time for it to be "below baseline" before the next meal comes. So the issue is, at the end of the day/week/month, did total fat usage exceed total fat storage.

The concept, or the way I see it, suggests you would have more periods of "below baseline". However, the other question is, does it really matter if you are always at a caloric deficit?

Sidesteal

However, the other question is, does it really matter if you are always at a caloric deficit?

And I believe the answer to this is a resounding "no".

All that matters is that fat oxidation exceeds fat storage over time, and this is governed by energy balance.

Sidesteal

The concept, or the way I see it, suggests you would have more periods of "below baseline".

But by definition, they would be shorter (assuming more frequent feeding).

UponThisRock

Ok, on with the question. Given the above diagram, since insulin is elevated during feeding and insulin reduces during periods when not eating, wouldn't it be counterproductive in continuing to keep insulin levels increased at multiple times during the day?

Assuming calories were the same, with an increased meal frequency, insulin would not rise as high, but there would also be less time for it to be "below baseline" before the next meal comes. So the issue is, at the end of the day/week/month, did total fat usage exceed total fat storage.

The concept, or the way I see it, suggests you would have more periods of "below baseline". However, the other question is, does it really matter if you are always at a caloric deficit?

More periods below baseline, yes. However, you wouldn't go as far below baseline, and the amount of time you are below baseline before your next meal would be shorter.

As sidesteal said, "calorie deficit" is a thing that happens over time. There really is no one specific time where you can say "I am in a calorie deficit," your body's energy stores are constantly in flux.

Here are 2 articles that might help explain things in more detail:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

Jojo2k11

Yeah, I'm actually going back and forth between the 5 small meals vs 2-3 meals a day. Honestly, I don't see any difference. Since I started paying attention to what I eat I've noticed I can tell the difference between hunger and thirst and that as long as I stay within my calorie levels I lose weight.

Granted, I'm still a novice to this, but I believe its much simpler than what "the experts" make it out to be. I'm still working on exercising regularly and I notice that when I do workout, I'm hungrier. Makes sense, I've just expended more calories than usual hence the reason you're allowed to "eat" your workout calories burned. When I don't workout, the normal daily caloric limit is fine hunger wise, I just notice weight nor inches come off as fast.

I personally think the key is knowing what you're eating and moderation when doing so. Even when I go out to eat I read what's in my meal, I modify it based on what I think might be a healthier alternative if needed and I use the hand measurements to keep track of how much I'm eating.

However I've chosen to eat, I've found that sticking to the calorie limit has been the overall key to my success

UponThisRock

Yeah, I'm actually going back and forth between the 5 small meals vs 2-3 meals a day. Honestly, I don't see any difference. Since I started paying attention to what I eat I've noticed I can tell the difference between hunger and thirst and that as long as I stay within my calorie levels I lose weight.

Granted, I'm still a novice to this, but I believe its much simpler than what "the experts" make it out to be. I'm still working on exercising regularly and I notice that when I do workout, I'm hungrier. Makes sense, I've just expended more calories than usual hence the reason you're allowed to "eat" your workout calories burned. When I don't workout, the normal daily caloric limit is fine hunger wise, I just notice weight nor inches come off as fast.

I personally think the key is knowing what you're eating and moderation when doing so. Even when I go out to eat I read what's in my meal, I modify it based on what I think might be a healthier alternative if needed and I use the hand measurements to keep track of how much I'm eating.

However I've chosen to eat, I've found that sticking to the calorie limit has been the overall key to my success

You might be a novice, but you've got it figured out better than most

BAMFMeredith

Yeah, I'm actually going back and forth between the 5 small meals vs 2-3 meals a day. Honestly, I don't see any difference. Since I started paying attention to what I eat I've noticed I can tell the difference between hunger and thirst and that as long as I stay within my calorie levels I lose weight.

Granted, I'm still a novice to this, but I believe its much simpler than what "the experts" make it out to be. I'm still working on exercising regularly and I notice that when I do workout, I'm hungrier. Makes sense, I've just expended more calories than usual hence the reason you're allowed to "eat" your workout calories burned. When I don't workout, the normal daily caloric limit is fine hunger wise, I just notice weight nor inches come off as fast.

I personally think the key is knowing what you're eating and moderation when doing so. Even when I go out to eat I read what's in my meal, I modify it based on what I think might be a healthier alternative if needed and I use the hand measurements to keep track of how much I'm eating.

However I've chosen to eat, I've found that sticking to the calorie limit has been the overall key to my success

I agree with you. I usually eat about 6 times a day BUT I don't really like eating a lot at once, so I like to eat my smaller meals throughout the day. Then there are days where I have one big meal and maybe a light snack later. As long as I'm getting the right amount of calories, it doesn't really matter to me. Generally, eating several times a day works better for me, but not for any metabolism booster reasons, just because it keeps me from being hungry. And I've lost 9 lbs doing this. I really think it all comes down to personal preference!