6 small meals a day is a scam?

nichojanes

If you think about how our bodies are designed it is clear that we are not designed for many small meals.

Evolutionary wise we have developed as hunter gathers. Simply put we are designed to spend a day hunting and then consume in a large meal. Probably not even on a daily basis which is why Intermittent Fasting has so many benefits.

There are so many false theories about diet but the simple fact is that if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight. It does not matter when during the day, or how the calories are consumed.

barmum

I've been advised to eat six small meals due to multiple hernias , supposedly it places less stress on the stomach and means that it's never empty enough for the acid to start attacking the stomach and therefore cause an ulcer , how does that work with this ?
(Citation wise this came from medical advice and coping successfully with your hiatus hernia by Dr Tom Smith )

Sarauk2sf

healthiest option.

Wherever you turn there is someone extolling the virtues of eating five to six small meals per day. From doctors to dieticians, from Cosmopolitan to Women's health, there has been an explosion of acceptance that frequent small meals are the key to everything from weight loss to lower cholesterol and longevity. Almost all diet books either base their recommendations on this principal or incorporate aggressive snacking as part of their program. Yet remarkably, despite its presentation as dietary dogma, there is almost no science to support such information. In fact it flies in the face of everything we know about metabolism and the hormonal regulation of our energy supplies.

The myth that frequent small meals were the key to weight loss likely arose from two sources. The first involved dietary studies performed in the late 1990's that showed how frequent small carbohydrate meals could lead to more stable blood sugar and insulin levels along with lower cholesterol. Aimed primarily at diabetics, the concept spread rapidly to normal and then overweight individuals. The second related to research indicating that metabolic rate increased temporarily after a meal. This led to the concept that more meals would somehow "supercharge" the body and allow it to burn off fat. However, that was the '90's. Things have changed and new research is available. In addition, the fact that our population is growing steadily larger and unhealthier is certainly a compelling argument against frequent small meals being a dietary panacea!

In order to dispel the myth of frequent small meal eating, consider some of the theories proposed as to why it works. For example, does it really "supercharge" our metabolism? The answer is "no". While it is true that there is a temporary increase in the metabolic rate associated with the ingestion, absorption and metabolism of food, it only amounts to about 10% of your calorie intake and is independent of meal size. So, whether you eat 3 meals of 900 calories or 6 meals of 450 calories (both totalling 2700 calories) you will only increase you metabolism by 270 calories per day. Unfortunately, the frequent small meal option reduces your leptin levels, which actually lowers your metabolic rate!

Eating numerous small carbohydrate meals during the day may well lead to more stable blood sugar but at what cost. The persistent secretion of insulin this type of diet causes will actually increase the risk of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome. The studies that showed how frequent small meals could reduce cholesterol only compared small carbohydrate meals to large carbohydrate meals rather than to balanced protein-complex carbohydrate intake. This latter type of diet achieves stable blood sugars without overstressing the pancreas and also stops the liver from producing cholesterol.

For those on a diet, frequent small meals are offered as the answer to food cravings and satiety. That is a little like trying to get someone to stop smoking while allowing them to light up every time they have a nicotine yearning! Recent research on the real reasons behind hunger and craving relate to neurochemical changes in the brain, abnormal behaviour patterns that need to be changed not reinforced.

Probably the biggest problem with the whole concept of frequent small meals is that they rapidly become frequent large meals. Research shows us that having a snack between meals does not reduce the size of the next meal. In addition, the availability of fast, unhealthy food means that snacks often become highly calorific themselves. Giving an individual carte blanche to eat whenever they like in a society where food is so readily available may be a popular and painless option, but it is highly unlikely to be successful long-term. It will certainly never address the many health issues associated with overeating and a dysfunctional metabolism.

Normal human physiology is not designed for frequent small meals and remains essentially unchanged from that of our prehistoric ancestors. Neanderthal man was more accustomed to starvation and long gaps between meals than tucking into limitless dinosaur snacks by the fire. As such, humans are hardwired to be hungry and to store food away as fat. The two major hormones, insulin and leptin work together to manage fat stores. After a meal insulin rises for three hours, initially replacing glycogen stores and then shunting any extra calories into fat. As insulin levels fall we become able to access our fat stores as a source of energy. Eating another meal or snack at this point causes a further release of insulin, which not only inhibits our ability to burn fat but also acts as a strain on the pancreas. This secondary rise in insulin is more prolonged and when the cycle is repeated will eventually lead to hyperinsulinaemia and insulin resistance, forerunners of metabolic syndrome. In addition, this pattern leads to leptin resistance resulting in food cravings and a slower metabolism.

For individuals using exercise to lose weight, fat is normally mobilized at two to five time normal with even moderate activity, mostly from the abdominal area. However, even a slight increase in insulin immediately shuts off this process and prevents any access to fat stores. So snacking effectively reverses any weight-loss benefits of your exercise program

And here is the source for this plagarism:

http://www.nocrave.com/fm_small_meal_myth.php

which lacks any references to studies etc itself

(which I am assuming is itself not plagarized!)

caraiselite

i eat when i'm hungry. i don't follow a clock.

A_Shannigans

It's not a scam unless money changed hands! Calories in/calories out is about all I have the time and energy to keep up with. I eat when I'm hungry and make sure it fits in my calorie budget. Oh and I try to eat a variety even if I don't always succeed.

llstacy

I've been advised to eat six small meals due to multiple hernias , supposedly it places less stress on the stomach and means that it's never empty enough for the acid to start attacking the stomach and therefore cause an ulcer , how does that work with this ?
(Citation wise this came from medical advice and coping successfully with your hiatus hernia by Dr Tom Smith )

If you have a medical condition you have to follow the advice you were given but if it were me I'd make darn sure they know what they're talking about. Do some research, look online to be sure others had success doing what your doctor said to do, that sort of thing.

geebusuk

How in the heck can I cram 2800 calories into 3 meals? seriously? I'm not bring sarcastic.

Eat cheese.
I could often have 200g of cheese on a microwave meal (sometimes more with some nibbling) never mind on a big pasta meal I actually liked.
As with everything. build yourself up a bit at a time to eat more and more, whatever you're eating.

Appreciated you're of course very different to me as putting weight on certainly isn't a problem for me - though having been on a restricted diet it'd take me a little time to get back there.
I'm sure I could easily have had 2800cals in one meal (with desert).

TKHappy

"Eating numerous small carbohydrate meals during the day may well lead to more stable blood sugar but at what cost. The persistent secretion of insulin this type of diet causes will actually increase the risk of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome. The studies that showed how frequent small meals could reduce cholesterol only compared small carbohydrate meals to large carbohydrate meals rather than to balanced protein-complex carbohydrate intake. This latter type of diet achieves stable blood sugars without overstressing the pancreas and also stops the liver from producing cholesterol."

This statement is what bothers me about your article...they are referencing meals consisting of high carb intake! All my 6 meals a day include a balance of carbs, proteins and fat which DO help in weight loss...notice the "rather than to balanced protein-complex cabohydrate intake". I suggest before anyone takes one study as a serious source you do research and realize that what works for you will not work for the next guy!

barmum

I've been advised to eat six small meals due to multiple hernias , supposedly it places less stress on the stomach and means that it's never empty enough for the acid to start attacking the stomach and therefore cause an ulcer , how does that work with this ?
(Citation wise this came from medical advice and coping successfully with your hiatus hernia by Dr Tom Smith )

If you have a medical condition you have to follow the advice you were given but if it were me I'd make darn sure they know what they're talking about. Do some research, look online to be sure others had success doing what your doctor said to do, that sort of thing.

Sound advice, thank you , I'm doing some reading around etc because to be honest my Dr's advice has been mixed and in some areas about as much use as a chocolate fireguard :S

billyh333

I am saying that six small meals can't and will work for somepeople just that that in losing your complete potential you can be open minded and try diffrent things

thelovelyLIZ

I wouldn't say it's a scam. Some people prefer to eat smaller meals through the day- I do. Just depends on your preference. I don't think it makes much of a difference for a metabolism though. I don't really think our metabolisms are quite a fragile as a lot of people seem the think.

Sidesteal

I am saying that six small meals can't and will work for somepeople just that that in losing your complete potential you can be open minded and try diffrent things

You should reference your posts if you copy them from external sources. Just sayin.

Sidesteal

Not pimping this because I wrote it, but for a referenced write up that links to research and external articles, this should explain meal frequency and it's effects (or lack thereof) on thermogenesis:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/529002-a-compliation-on-meal-frequency

Jules2Be

I wouldn't say it's a scam. Some people prefer to eat smaller meals through the day- I do. Just depends on your preference. I don't think it makes much of a difference for a metabolism though. I don't really think our metabolisms are quite a fragile as a lot of people seem the think.

ohnoes, i broke my metabolism!

Absref71

Generally protein stays in your system for up to 3 hours (casein 6-8 hours) therefor in order to keep a constant supply of amino acids in your blood you need to eat every 3 hours.

Sidesteal

Generally protein stays in your system for up to 3 hours (casein 6-8 hours) therefor in order to keep a constant supply of amino acids in your blood you need to eat every 3 hours.

Your information is a bit outdated. See my reply in previous thread regarding the dude eating pizza.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10331398

This would indicate over 5 hours for a meal that isn't even that big.

You know who wants you to believe that you only have 3 hours? The people selling protein powder, and the magazines that get income from the protein companies.

sarahleeroy

For individuals using exercise to lose weight, fat is normally mobilized at two to five time normal with even moderate activity, mostly from the abdominal area. However, even a slight increase in insulin immediately shuts off this process and prevents any access to fat stores. So snacking effectively reverses any weight-loss benefits of your exercise program

Where did you get this from? Admittedly, I don't have research to refute you, but I've got some serious cognitive dissonance going on with this theory.

Insulin promotes fat storage, so it makes sense that the less you secrete insulin, the less fat you'll store. I have read that continuously snacking throughout the day doesn't give your body a chance to use it's glycogen (fat) stores for energy since you're constantly feeding yourself. However, on a low calorie diet I think this all balances out b/c you're technically not eating enough to maintain your energy requirements thus causing the fat loss. So, if you feel better with having a snack and you still stay under your calorie requirements for the day then you'll still lose weight. If you were eating at maintenance and eating several times a day, then it seems like you would end up storing more fat in the long run.

cordianet

I believe it's true there's no metabolic advantage to eating more frequently, but I've not seen anything that shows there's a disadvantage either. In addition, we have to understand that weight loss is about more than just metabolism. There are many other factors, not the least of which is the psychological one. I eat 3 medium size meals and 2-3 snacks a day and it works for me. It works because I like to snack and when I do so I feel less hungry. If I ate bigger at the meals and tried not to snack, I'd have a much harder time. Plus, I'm really trying to learn portion control and I find that easier when I have to have a smaller meal that I might have had before I started my weight loss journey.

I think the important thing is doing what works for you. For some of us, eating 5-6 times a day works. For some, eating 3 times a day works. For some, they use IF or other techniques. I don't think it matters metabolically. What matter is what you can stick to.

Sidesteal

For individuals using exercise to lose weight, fat is normally mobilized at two to five time normal with even moderate activity, mostly from the abdominal area. However, even a slight increase in insulin immediately shuts off this process and prevents any access to fat stores. So snacking effectively reverses any weight-loss benefits of your exercise program

Where did you get this from? Admittedly, I don't have research to refute you, but I've got some serious cognitive dissonance going on with this theory.

Insulin promotes fat storage, so it makes sense that the less you secrete insulin, the less fat you'll store. I have read that continuously snacking throughout the day doesn't give your body a chance to use it's glycogen (fat) stores for energy since you're constantly feeding yourself. However, on a low calorie diet I think this all balances out b/c you're technically not eating enough to maintain your energy requirements thus causing the fat loss. So, if you feel better with having a snack and you still stay under your calorie requirements for the day then you'll still lose weight. If you were eating at maintenance and eating several times a day, then it seems like you would end up storing more fat in the long run.

All that matters is that fat oxidation exceeds fat storage over the course of long periods of time. Energy balance will drive this process. Here's a very good explanation:

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

Sapporo

I wouldn't say it is a scam. Some people do well on 6 meals per day. I'm one who doesn't, I only eat 3-4 times per day, if 4 the extra one is just a small snack (which I'm trying to drop), otherwise I eat too many calories overall. Whatever works for you is best for you, and 6 small meals if it works for someone else then that is better for them.