Eating every 2-3 hours a MYTH!??? WTH!

spoiledpuppies

As with everything, I agree with doing whatever works for you. For me, I actually see getting hungry as a good thing. First, I figure when I'm hungry, my body is using other fuel--or I'm at least reminded of what I'm doing. And second, I think it teaches me about my body better--to actually know what hunger feels like.

cwolfman13

Meal timing is largely irrelevant. Do whatever fits in with your lifestyle. For me, eating 5-6 times per day is the way to go...but I don't think it has any bearing on my metabolism...I just like to eat frequently. For others, IF and eating one or two enormous meals is best...it's all up to you, but there is no magic and there really is no such thing as stoking the fires of your metabolism.

Vailara

I usually eat three meals a day, and I've got to say, it's the biggest thing which has helped with weight loss. I only have a small TDEE and if I ate six meals, they'd have to be really tiny! I've actually learned to NOT listen to my body (which was lying to me for years about how much I needed to eat!). I have got used to getting a little hungry between meals, and I find it very easy not to eat between the first two meals. The evenings are harder, but I have some little tricks that I use, and sometimes leave some calories spare in case I "need" them.

jobrian1984

6 small meals a day is bull****

I eat whenever I'm hungry, as long as im hitting calorie goals it does not matter.

I did intermittent fasting last year for 4 months, if anything i saw better results eating 2 large meals a day that equaled my daily calories, than spreading it all day and doing 6.

Intermittent fasting is totally different than eating every 2-3 hours. Nothing in this post asked if intermittent fasting helps your metabolism. Intermittent fasting only works short term, 4 months of it is way too long!!!

DavPul

The idea that eating small meals every few hours "boosts your metabolism" is the part that's a myth. What isn't a myth is that it helps keep some people from feeling hungry because they always have at least some food in their bodies. For those people, it can keep portion sizes down just because they aren't as hungry.

If you find yourself starving between meals and ending up eating a lot more than your calorie allowance because you're just so hungry, try eating more frequently. It's not an inherently better or worse system, just one that works for some people.

Not a myth if there is evidence based research. Myths cannot be proven through research. Facts with visible results aren't myth!! Do your research!

it is a myth. but more importantly, why did you feel the need to revive this year old thread to spread this myth? this thread should be standing next to a newspaper for proof of life, not you. either way, welcome to the mfp forums. i'm sure you'll be fun to have around.

pro-tip: next time you should have some links to research handy, because BS gets blown out of the water here real fast.

cmriverside

6 small meals a day is bull****

I eat whenever I'm hungry, as long as im hitting calorie goals it does not matter.

I did intermittent fasting last year for 4 months, if anything i saw better results eating 2 large meals a day that equaled my daily calories, than spreading it all day and doing 6.

Intermittent fasting is totally different than eating every 2-3 hours. Nothing in this post asked if intermittent fasting helps your metabolism. Intermittent fasting only works short term, 4 months of it is way too long!!!

Let me see if I've got this straight.

You join this site and restart a thread that has been dead for over a year.

You argue with everyone who makes any kind of statement about what works for them (that aren't even directed at you.)

YOUR research is the only research that counts.

Intermittent Fasting is only for less than four months. I'm doing it wrong. IF is a way of life, not a "gets results diet." So, not sure what you mean by "it only works short term." IF is what I do naturally - even before I heard it has a name. So for about twenty years of my life it has kept me alive at a good weight. So it works.

elisabeisme

I'm currently on a 5 smaller meals schedule. I have trouble with nighttime eating so I've been eating a rather late dinner and saving sufficient calories for post dinner eating. I tend to eat early in the day only due to convention because one is "supposed" to eat a good breakfast, etc.

I recently did a fasting exercise where I fasted until dinner (morning coffees only). I've been thinking whether I could manage an IF plan with an evening eating window and if it would work better for me.

I've been reading a lot of the research on which pattern is better. The research seems to be inconclusive. I've seen the studies mentioned above by SailorKnight, which are very interesting, but they seem to only address metabolism levels. It'a a strictly calorific argument that will definitely appeal to the "calories in-calories out" crowd. I personally believe there is more complexity in the body than that.

I found this study particularly interesting:

http://www.salk.edu/news/pressrelease_details.php?press_id=560

marilou0511

6 small meals a day is bull****

Hello from Chicago. I think you should go easy. We all work differently. Just because "6 small meals" doesn't work for YOU DOES NOT mean it is not a good plan for others. You understand what I mean, I hope.

ksuh999

It's not ironic, because I can back up what I say.

Jim Stoppani, PhD-Jim Stoppani received his doctorate in exercise physiology with a minor in biochemistry from the University of Connecticut. Following graduation, he served as a postdoctoral research fellow in the prestigious John B. Pierce Laboratory and Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology at Yale University School of Medicine, where he investigated the effects of exercise and diet on gene regulation in muscle tissue.

Science proves that


1. Eat 6 smaller meals per day, not 2-3 feasts

This will ensure that you supply your body with the nutrients necessary to build muscle and burn fat.

Bonus: Your resting metabolic rate increases. It will also prevent your body from kicking into “starvation” mode, which can happen when too much time elapses between meals.

If this happens, your body will start burning muscle for energy and increasing your body fat stores, as well as slowing down your metabolism. This is the exact opposite of what you want to happen.

Don’t be one of those people that complain about their situation but never does anything to improve it. Don’t become “happy” with the status quo of being miserable. Now take action on your knowledge!
(Dr Jim Soppani)"

http://examine.com/faq/do-i-need-to-eat-six-times-a-day-to-keep-my-metabolism-high.html

http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people.html

taso42

either one works

SideSteel

The idea that eating small meals every few hours "boosts your metabolism" is the part that's a myth. What isn't a myth is that it helps keep some people from feeling hungry because they always have at least some food in their bodies. For those people, it can keep portion sizes down just because they aren't as hungry.

If you find yourself starving between meals and ending up eating a lot more than your calorie allowance because you're just so hungry, try eating more frequently. It's not an inherently better or worse system, just one that works for some people.

Not a myth if there is evidence based research. Myths cannot be proven through research. Facts with visible results aren't myth!! Do your research!

Please read this and note the research I've attached in this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/820577-meal-frequency-rev-up-that-furnace-lol

MB_Positif

Whatever works for you. I eat 3 meals generally between 300 and 500 calories and a zillion snacks in between and afterwards. So according to people who write articles they would probably say I eat about 8-9 small meals a day. Works for me!

etoiles_argentees

I eat every few hours, it works for me.

Hadabetter

I had these same questions so I did some investigation and I've summarized what I found, below. If anyone wants links to the source documents or studies, send me a PM and I can provide them. So...in no particular order, what I've learned in support of eating multiple smaller meals a day:

1) Protein utilization - You cannot utilize more than ~30 grams of protein per meal for anabolic purposes. Protein consumed in excess of this amount is either used for its caloric value (not optimal because protein is a "dirty" fuel), or will be stored as fat. Individuals with protein needs in excess of 90 grams/day, and who only eat 3 meals/day run the risk of being in a continual protein deficit. The body will react to this by catabolizing lean body mass.

2) Excess thermogenesis of multiple meals - This is not a myth. It has been demonstrated that single, large meals are more efficiently processed than are multiple, smaller meals of equivalent caloric value. Another way of saying this is that it takes more calories to process multiple small meals. The difference in the caloric requirements is not trivial, and does effectively raise the metabolic rate of the individual eating multiple meals.

3) Fat storage - Larger, less frequent meals produce a greater insulin response, which results in increased fat storage.

4) Reduced time spent in energy deficit - This is related to the first point listed, but is slightly different. Consider that at any given time your body has a specific requirement for energy. It is less when you are at rest and more when you are exercising. Similarly, at any given time your body is receiving a certain amount of energy through nutrition. This level is high immediately following a meal and will taper off over time. Studies have shown that the less time spent during the day in energy deficit (and the avoidance of large deficits), the lower the amount of muscle catabolism the body will employ. Consider an extreme example of this: A person exercises hard in the morning, and eats one meal a day in the evening. Even if that meal is sufficient to cover the individual's daily caloric requirements, they will have spent most of the day in an energy deficit, catabolizing lean muscle mass, and they will spend most of the evening in a large caloric surplus, with a high insulin response, laying down fat. Think of this as reverse body recomposition. Now consider a person on the opposite end of the spectrum. They eat 5 small meals a day and they time their largest meals to be before and after their exercise period. This person can support both muscle growth and fat reduction. Ignoring that the frequent eater will have burned more calories as a result of the frequent meals, in these two example the two individuals will have engaged in the same amount of exercise and eating the same amount of calories per day, but by managing the amount of time during the day spent in extreme surplus or deficit, they will experience very different outcomes.

The slide below illustrates this. Eating Pattern 1 shows a person eating multiple small meals a day. Eating Pattern 2 shows a person eating three large meals a day. Eating Patter 3 shows a person eating one large meal in the evening. It's important to note that all three end the day at the 0 line, meaning that they all exactly covered their calorie requirements. However, each of them spent all of the minutes and hours during the day at various levels of caloric surplus or deficit. Studies suggest that Eating Pattern 1 is optimal for avoiding fat creation and muscle catabolism.


Anyway...that's what I've found, so that's my story and I'm sticking to it! :laugh:

WisiPls

6 small meals a day is bull****

Hello from Chicago. I think you should go easy. We all work differently. Just because "6 small meals" doesn't work for YOU DOES NOT mean it is not a good plan for others. You understand what I mean, I hope.

Yeah i understand what you mean, I'm just saying if you eat 6 small meals a day or 3 large ones, as long as the calories are the same at the end of the day, you won't see a difference

the body is pretty simple when it comes to weight gain or loss, go over maintenance and you'll gain weight, go under and you will lose it. Even without additional exercise (which i don't recommend)

But if people eat 6 small meals a day because it's easier for them, then by all means go for it, results will be the same, you'll still lose or gain weight :P

Akimajuktuq

Imo, we are not cows and not meant to graze. I eat 2 large meals per day usually. Low calorie grazing does not work for me.

SideSteel

I had these same questions so I did some investigation and I've summarized what I found, below. If anyone wants links to the source documents or studies, send me a PM and I can provide them. So...in no particular order, what I've learned in support of eating multiple smaller meals a day:

1) Protein utilization - You cannot utilize more than ~30 grams of protein per meal for anabolic purposes. Protein consumed in excess of this amount is either used for its caloric value (not optimal because protein is a "dirty" fuel), or will be stored as fat. Individuals with protein needs in excess of 90 grams/day, and who only eat 3 meals/day run the risk of being in a continual protein deficit. The body will react to this by catabolizing lean body mass.

2) Excess thermogenesis of multiple meals - This is not a myth. It has been demonstrated that single, large meals are more efficiently processed than are multiple, smaller meals of equivalent caloric value. Another way of saying this is that it takes more calories to process multiple small meals. The difference in the caloric requirements is not trivial, and does effectively raise the metabolic rate of the individual eating multiple meals.

3) Fat storage - Larger, less frequent meals produce a greater insulin response, which results in increased fat storage.

4) Reduced time spent in energy deficit - This is related to the first point listed, but is slightly different. Consider that at any given time your body has a specific requirement for energy. It is less when you are at rest and more when you are exercising. Similarly, at any given time your body is receiving a certain amount of energy through nutrition. This level is high immediately following a meal and will taper off over time. Studies have shown that the less time spent during the day in energy deficit (and the avoidance of large deficits), the lower the amount of muscle catabolism the body will employ. Consider an extreme example of this: A person exercises hard in the morning, and eats one meal a day in the evening. Even if that meal is sufficient to cover the individual's daily caloric requirements, they will have spent most of the day in an energy deficit, catabolizing lean muscle mass, and they will spend most of the evening in a large caloric surplus, with a high insulin response, laying down fat. Think of this as reverse body recomposition. Now consider a person on the opposite end of the spectrum. They eat 5 small meals a day and they time their largest meals to be before and after their exercise period. This person can support both muscle growth and fat reduction. Ignoring that the frequent eater will have burned more calories as a result of the frequent meals, in these two example the two individuals will have engaged in the same amount of exercise and eating the same amount of calories per day, but by managing the amount of time during the day spent in extreme surplus or deficit, they will experience very different outcomes.

The slide below illustrates this. Eating Pattern 1 shows a person eating multiple small meals a day. Eating Pattern 2 shows a person eating three large meals a day. Eating Patter 3 shows a person eating one large meal in the evening. It's important to note that all three end the day at the 0 line, meaning that they all exactly covered their calorie requirements. However, each of them spent all of the minutes and hours during the day at various levels of caloric surplus or deficit. Studies suggest that Eating Pattern 1 is optimal for avoiding fat creation and muscle catabolism.


Anyway...that's what I've found, so that's my story and I'm sticking to it! :laugh:

I'm interested in the resources you've used to conclude this. You may want to post it in the thread so we can all discuss it, rather than via PMs.

MercenaryNoetic26

SNIPPED

ETA: lol! Reading all comments... a revived thread fo sho! :laugh:

cmriverside

<snip long post & graph>

I'm interested in the resources you've used to conclude this. You may want to post it in the thread so we can all discuss it, rather than via PMs.

I'm with Sidesteel on this. We can all find walls o' text on the internet to copy pasta. If there is no reference source, it's all gibberish. And not just an article, but something peer reviewed that is actual research.

etoiles_argentees

I had these same questions so I did some investigation and I've summarized what I found, below. If anyone wants links to the source documents or studies, send me a PM and I can provide them. So...in no particular order, what I've learned in support of eating multiple smaller meals a day:

1) Protein utilization - You cannot utilize more than ~30 grams of protein per meal for anabolic purposes. Protein consumed in excess of this amount is either used for its caloric value (not optimal because protein is a "dirty" fuel), or will be stored as fat. Individuals with protein needs in excess of 90 grams/day, and who only eat 3 meals/day run the risk of being in a continual protein deficit. The body will react to this by catabolizing lean body mass.

2) Excess thermogenesis of multiple meals - This is not a myth. It has been demonstrated that single, large meals are more efficiently processed than are multiple, smaller meals of equivalent caloric value. Another way of saying this is that it takes more calories to process multiple small meals. The difference in the caloric requirements is not trivial, and does effectively raise the metabolic rate of the individual eating multiple meals.

3) Fat storage - Larger, less frequent meals produce a greater insulin response, which results in increased fat storage.

4) Reduced time spent in energy deficit - This is related to the first point listed, but is slightly different. Consider that at any given time your body has a specific requirement for energy. It is less when you are at rest and more when you are exercising. Similarly, at any given time your body is receiving a certain amount of energy through nutrition. This level is high immediately following a meal and will taper off over time. Studies have shown that the less time spent during the day in energy deficit (and the avoidance of large deficits), the lower the amount of muscle catabolism the body will employ. Consider an extreme example of this: A person exercises hard in the morning, and eats one meal a day in the evening. Even if that meal is sufficient to cover the individual's daily caloric requirements, they will have spent most of the day in an energy deficit, catabolizing lean muscle mass, and they will spend most of the evening in a large caloric surplus, with a high insulin response, laying down fat. Think of this as reverse body recomposition. Now consider a person on the opposite end of the spectrum. They eat 5 small meals a day and they time their largest meals to be before and after their exercise period. This person can support both muscle growth and fat reduction. Ignoring that the frequent eater will have burned more calories as a result of the frequent meals, in these two example the two individuals will have engaged in the same amount of exercise and eating the same amount of calories per day, but by managing the amount of time during the day spent in extreme surplus or deficit, they will experience very different outcomes.

The slide below illustrates this. Eating Pattern 1 shows a person eating multiple small meals a day. Eating Pattern 2 shows a person eating three large meals a day. Eating Patter 3 shows a person eating one large meal in the evening. It's important to note that all three end the day at the 0 line, meaning that they all exactly covered their calorie requirements. However, each of them spent all of the minutes and hours during the day at various levels of caloric surplus or deficit. Studies suggest that Eating Pattern 1 is optimal for avoiding fat creation and muscle catabolism.


Anyway...that's what I've found, so that's my story and I'm sticking to it! :laugh:

interesting. I 've always eating small meals frequently, I'm the same size I was in high school.