Eating three vs. five times a day

intermittent fasting

I have found from experience that eating five times per day means that the only thing I ever seemed to be doing was eating or thinking about eating. It did however help me stabilise my weight so I know it works if the right foods are eaten.
I have now entered a phase where I eat a snack if I feel hungry but otherwise only eat three meals per day. The quality of what I eat however is the most important thing for me. I make sure that I dont eat processed food. I also dont add salt to any food that I cook. I also stopped drinking alcohol in January and it was one of the best decisions I ever made. Its not for everyone but for me was the right thing to do.
The other important decision I took, which I imagine wont make much sense to many people, is that I have stopped weighing myself. I measure my sucess through how I feel in my clothes. Putting the scales away in January 2012 has been a revelation as prior to this I would weigh myself twice per day. Now I no longer have that constant pressure on myself that many of my girlfriends still share. Being healthy and listening to my body allows me to know when I am eating right or not. So on this site you will never see my weight progress but I will update with how I feel as I make additional changes to my diet and when I drop a dress size. I believe also that sport is so key to health both physical and mental. I have two operations recently and am currently at home on sick leave but my doctor told me walking would be good for me so I am doing that everyday. First time exercising outside of a gym but I am loving it especially as the autumn weather is so great at the moment.

I eat about nine times a day.
Breakfast
Lunch
Snacks 1-5 (yogurt, veggies [2], almonds or pistachios w/variable snack 1, variable snack 2)
Dinner
Dessert

Currently on a 1400-1500 net calories per day range.

Breakfast is at 9am, dinner/dessert typically no later than 7pm since I workout after dinner.

Not endorsing it as a plan to follow, just how I like to do it.

I think the myth that 6 meals a day raises your metabolism has pretty well been dismissed. I think the main help is building muscle and giving your body a steady flow of protein to repair build muscle. Also, I understand it can help with getting a six pack as some people's genetics have their bodies store fat on the bellies and burn else where.

I know that the causes of obesity have been addressed many times on these forums, and there are so many different factors, it's impossible to pinpoint any particular one, or even two or three, as the cause. However, I was reading a blog the other day, and the blogger pasted in part of an article she ran across, and it made me take pause for a moment. Here is the snippet she posted:
Eat THREE – not six – meals, which gives the intestinal tract time in between meals to rest and heal. If you have erratic eating habits, such as "grazing all day," the digestive fire is always on and soon the incessant digestive process begins to irritate the intestinal wall.

Is this from RunEatRepeat?! I just read that this am. I eat about 4x a day - when I'm hungry (though gummi bears are my snack at work weakness....)

I don't care about timing, the only thing I care about is letting food digest before I sleep, but I usually have cottage cheese right before I go to sleep

I know that the causes of obesity have been addressed many times on these forums, and there are so many different factors, it's impossible to pinpoint any particular one, or even two or three, as the cause. However, I was reading a blog the other day, and the blogger pasted in part of an article she ran across, and it made me take pause for a moment. Here is the snippet she posted:
Eat THREE – not six – meals, which gives the intestinal tract time in between meals to rest and heal. If you have erratic eating habits, such as "grazing all day," the digestive fire is always on and soon the incessant digestive process begins to irritate the intestinal wall.

In the old days a farmer could spend hours in the fields with no problem. Imagine if they had to come into the house every 2-3 hours for a snack! This kind of blood sugar instability is a modern day imbalance.

Six meals a day is a medicinal diet for treating the symptoms of severe hypoglycemia. It was never intended to be a way of life. Nowhere else in the world have humans eaten constantly until this vain American experiment. We are told that eating six meals a day will help us lose weight by keeping the metabolism high and revved up and that it won’t let the body store fat.

We are not meant to have our metabolism revved up all day. It depletes and exhausts the adrenals (which ultimately causes fat storage) and never gives the digestion a rest.
While we won’t store fat eating every 2-3 hours, we also will never burn any stored fat. Cancer causing toxins are stored in our fat cells and the fat needs a reason to burn.
With blood sugars artificially propped up from constant feeding, the ability to make energy last is replaced with fragile energy, constant hunger, mood instability and extreme cravings if a meal or snack is missed.


I started talking to my husband about this, and he made two very good points. First, eating all the time keeps people's pancreases working constantly, thereby wearing them out, which may explain why type 2 diabetes cases are spiking. Second, he recalled first hearing about eating multiple times a day back in the 1980s, which is about the time that obesity rates started spiking. Is it possible that by eating multiple times a day, rather than slaking our hunger as experts claim, it may be causing people to ingest more calories than they would eating only three meals a day? Not everyone can eat a couple hundred calorie snack, and it takes just a few extra calories daily to pack on the pounds over time.

Do any of you have thoughts about this? Do the 'experts' REALLY know the best way to lose weight? It seems to me that we are fighting a losing battle, and their 'expert advice' is not working so well.

Whoever posted the snippet you reposted, I suggest you ignore them from now on

Aye.

Listen to your body, eat when you're hungry. The body is much smarter than people give it credit.

Listen to your body, eat when you're hungry. The body is much smarter than people give it credit.

This. I eat all day every day, it works for me, never been overweight.

I don't think there is good evidence to support 3 or 6 times a day being better. I personally find that I am more satisfied eating a larger meal three times a day. I'd like to see evidence for "pancreas working constantly" or "intestines resting" before I used them for making changes. I think this one comes down to personal preference.

Do you think it makes a difference if lunch is the heavier meal?

No

Well, personally I rather eat when I'm hungry, rather than waiting 3 more hours and then eat too fast or too much because I've been hungry for several hours. Usually I have to eat every 3-4 hours - but is a piece of fruit really a "meal"?

^this^

I found some interesting info from peer reviewed studies. Basically the conclusion is that (when affected at all) cortisol, insulin, and even energy intake are positively impacted by REGULAR (which in this case means 6 meal feedings) meal frequency compared to irregular. I think consistency in how you fuel your body is MOST important, not necessarily eating 3 vs 5 times a day. This is my PERSONAL observation--when I follow a certain pattern my body becomes accustomed to meals at those times...I begin getting hungry if I skip a typical meal and my body is just "primed" (for lack of a better word) to have a meal. I think that this makes sense based on the conclusions of the studies I read. Of course you can ALWAYS find opposing evidence but I'll stick with what works for me.

I'll post the abstracts which include the conclusions.

Metabolic advantages of spreading the nutrient load: effects of increased meal frequency in non-insulin-dependent diabetes.
D J Jenkins, A Ocana, A L Jenkins, T M Wolever, V Vuksan, L Katzman, M Hollands, G Greenberg, P Corey, and R Patten
+ Author Affiliations

Department of Nutritional Sciences and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract

The acute effect of increasing meal frequency as a model of slow absorption was studied for 1 d in 11 patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes. On 1 d they took 13 snacks (the nibbling diet) and on another day the same diet was taken as three meals and one snack (the three-meal diet). The nibbling diet reduced mean blood glucose, serum insulin, and C peptide concentrations over the 9.5 h of observation and 24-h urinary C peptide output by 12.7 +/- 3.7% (mean +/- SE) (P = 0.0062), 20.1 +/- 5.8% (P = 0.0108), 9.2 +/- 2.6% (P = 0.0073), and 20.37 +/- 8.12% (P = 0.039), respectively, compared with the three-meal diet. Serum triglyceride concentrations were lower by 8.5 +/- 3.2% (P = 0.037). Despite lower insulin concentrations on the nibbling diet, the concentrations of free fatty acids, 3-hydroxybutyrate, and the insulin-sensitive branched-chain amino acids responded similarly on both treatments. Metabolic benefits seen with increased meal frequency may explain the success of similar agents that prolong absorption, including fiber and enzyme inhibitors.



Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women1,2,3
Hamid R Farshchi, Moira A Taylor, and Ian A Macdonald
+ Author Affiliations

1From the Centre for Integrated Systems Biology and Medicine, Institute of Clinical Research, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
Abstract

Background: Although a regular meal pattern is recommended for obese people, its effects on energy metabolism have not been examined.

Objective: We investigated whether a regular meal frequency affects energy intake (EI), energy expenditure, or circulating insulin, glucose, and lipid concentrations in healthy obese women.

Design: Ten women [x̄ ± SD body mass index (in kg/m2): 37.1 ± 4.8] participated in a randomized crossover trial. In phase 1 (14 d), the subjects consumed their normal diet on 6 occasions/d (regular meal pattern) or followed a variable meal frequency (3–9 meals/d, irregular meal pattern). In phase 2 (14 d), the subjects followed the alternative pattern. At the start and end of each phase, a test meal was fed, and blood glucose, lipid, and insulin concentrations were determined before and for 3 h after (glucose and insulin only) the test meal. Subjects recorded their food intake on 3 d during each phase. The thermogenic response to the test meal was ascertained by indirect calorimetry.

Results: Regular eating was associated with lower EI (P < 0.01), greater postprandial thermogenesis (P < 0.01), and lower fasting total (4.16 compared with 4.30 mmol/L; P < 0.01) and LDL (2.46 compared with 2.60 mmol/L; P < 0.02) cholesterol. Fasting glucose and insulin values were not affected by meal pattern, but peak insulin concentrations and area under the curve of insulin responses to the test meal were lower after the regular than after the irregular meal pattern (P < 0.01 and 0.02, respectively).

Conclusion: Regular eating has beneficial effects on fasting lipid and postprandial insulin profiles and thermogenesis.