3 normal meals? 5 small meals?

2»

Replies

  • paulperryman
    paulperryman Posts: 839 Member
    i eat whenever i feel the need so could be 3 could be 4

    during the week i work around 10hrs a day so i have Breakfast at 5am then a mid morning break at 10:30am and then nothing til 3pm maybe some fruit and nuts between 10:30 - 3pm but we work flatout as a forklift driver so not much chance to stop and eat when trucks are in every 10mins sometimes 4-5 at a time.

    after work i'll generally have a piece of fruit on the way home or something when i get home and then dinner at 6:30 after my gym workout. But that all varies, stress tends to kill my appetite and where i work it gets really stressfull at times.

    As far as i'm concerned aslong as i get around 1500-2000 calories a day it's all good. I'm still losing weight at a reasonable pace. and feel good. Far better then i use to not being able to sleep, emotional eating all the time and what i'd consider obese.

    my father is type 2 diabetic so he has smaller meals more often, and whenever he feels off.
  • mistesh
    mistesh Posts: 243 Member
    If your meal frequency is too high, your body will release insulin constantly, sugar is stored, fat is building up. Eventually your overworked pancreas might give up, leaving you with diabetes. When you allow for time inbetween meals, maintaining low levels of insulin allows your body to more easily tap into your stored fat for fuel. A scenario of three meals a day and a mid-afternoon snack which makes you fuller for longer boosts your metabolism.
  • JeneticTraining
    JeneticTraining Posts: 663 Member
    There have been several studies done that show smaller meals do play a role in higher calorie burning. However, some are right that the bottom line is that taking in a lower amount of calories per day than you burn does help you to loose weight. The problem is, though, when you eat three bigger meals, your body tends to store more fat because the liver can only process a certain amount of calories "at a time" so any additional calories are stored as fat for later usage. This becomes a problem later in the day because the liver can only store a certain amount of food to use for when you are sleeping (starvation period). When people eat a big meal in the evening, because your liver has already stored its calories for the day, the rest of the calories get stored as fat because the liver can't handle them. So...my point is that the reason people should eat smaller meals is so they can use those calories for energy throughout the day so the can store a small amount of energy from those calories each time you eat. This way, it won't get overloaded, and push them into a fat storing stage. And because you are full by the end of the day from eating so much, you won't eat a large meal that converts to fat in the overnight hours. My apologies if I sound like a know-it-all, but just want to share what I've researched and read about on the subject.

    I agree.
  • mistesh
    mistesh Posts: 243 Member
    There have been several studies done that show smaller meals do play a role in higher calorie burning.

    I was hoping for disclosed links to those studies. Meanwhile, here are some other references.

    "Yes, that's right - eating every 2-3rd hour to manage blood sugar is nonsense and a myth that's just about to die."

    http://www.leangains.com/2011/01/better-blood-glucose-with-lower-meal.html

    "The body needs time between meals to finish digesting, because when digestion has ended the body can more effectively detoxify and promote cellular repair. To maximize health, it is not favorable to be constantly eating and digesting food."

    http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-eat-for-health-commonly-held-nutritional-beliefs-and-the-truths-behind-them.html

    "Perhaps one of the longest standing dogmas in the weight loss and bodybuilding world is the absolute necessity of eating frequently for various reasons. Specific to weight loss, how many times have you heard something along the lines of “Eating 6 times per day stokes the metabolic fire.” or “You must eat 6 times per day to lose fat effectively.” or “Skipping even one meal per day will slow your metabolic rate and you’ll hoard fat.” Probably a lot

    Well, guess what. The idea is primarily based on awful observational studies and direct research (where meal frequency is varied within the context of an identical number of calories under controlled conditions) says that it’s all basically nonsense. The basic premise came, essentially out of a misunderstanding of the thermic effect of food (TEF) also called dietary induced thermogenesis (DIT) which are the calories burned in processing of the food you eat."

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
  • KenosFeoh
    KenosFeoh Posts: 1,837 Member
    No one strategy works for every body; that's why you see so many different opinions. You have to find out what works for you. Be willing to experiment a bit.

    My natural style is to "pick" a pinch of this, a spoonful of that, etc. But that makes it REALLY hard to keep a food log. I can't find an option for - example - 1 bite of lasagna. So now I'm trying to break it down into meals. I figure once it's on a plate measured and logged, I can take 2 hours to eat it if I want. I really detest a full feeling in my stomach.
  • taylorwaylor
    taylorwaylor Posts: 417 Member
    It really doesnt matter... I tried a lot of different ways of eating.. and i chose with eating when im hungry! I think everyone should... Because unless you plan on counting calories for the rest of your life, you might just gain the weight back.. And when you eat does not matter... I dont even eat breakfast anymore... and im seeing greater progress then when i did eat it! Just eat your calories and keep it clean and your set... Oh, and llift heavy :)
  • MsPudding
    MsPudding Posts: 562 Member
    It doesn't matter how often you eat - do what works for you.

    My preference is not to 'graze' constantly because a) I can't imagine ever getting enough time in the working day to think about food that often and b) the only creatures I see around me that graze all day are herbivores.

    I was also listening to a radio documentary a few months ago that said that 'grazing' was probably a contributing factor to obesity in the Western world. Even as short a time ago as the 70s we had an average of 4-5 hours between meals and now apparently it's about 2. The reason why 'grazing' was said to be bad is that most people don't count calories and 'pick up and go' food tends to be calorie dense/nutrient poor. Naturally there's going to be exceptions and it's likely that anyone on a fitness board who's eating lots of small meals is also calorie counting.
  • Energizer06
    Energizer06 Posts: 311 Member
    It really only matters for the following reasons:

    1. If your diabetic
    2. If your borderline diabetic
    3. If you have a tendency to gorge eat after fasting for a period of time.

    There have been studies both ways showing results to back up eating 5-6 times and back up 2-3 times.

    I personally prefer to go with more meals. As my opinion, is to believe that your burning calories while digesting, so if you digest all day and your comfortable with that preference, then go with it. However, you can burn the same amount of calories by digesting a large meal with less frequency. See no difference.

    Diabetics and borderline diabetic's pancreas cannot handle the major influx of insulin needed for one large meal. Sugar spikes and they have issues. So, unless you far in one of the 3 numbers above...whatever fits your day is best. Since there are a lot of obese folks on here, who may be borderline and don't know it, it is best to go with more frequency of meals until they out of danger of any unforeseen diabetic problem.

    Just my opinion.
  • dr3w_s
    dr3w_s Posts: 88 Member
    it doesn't matter, I only have time to eat 3 times a day and if I'm cutting it would 3 x 600 cal ish and if I'm bulking I would eat around 3 x 900 cal a day and I still see results
  • XXXMinnieXXX
    XXXMinnieXXX Posts: 3,459 Member
    It doesn't matter! Some days I eat small meals and lots of snacks, other days like today didn't eat all my meals, most of my calories was a big Sunday dinner. All that matters is that you work out a regime that is good for you, and helps you keep everything under control. Doesn't matter if it changes day to day! As long as I'm within calories and carbs with plenty of protein and not too much sugar I am happy, really doesn't matter how I get to that point through out the day!

    Zara :-)
  • Oncebittentwiceshy38
    Oncebittentwiceshy38 Posts: 127 Member
    If your meal frequency is too high, your body will release insulin constantly, sugar is stored, fat is building up. Eventually your overworked pancreas might give up, leaving you with diabetes. When you allow for time inbetween meals, maintaining low levels of insulin allows your body to more easily tap into your stored fat for fuel. A scenario of three meals a day and a mid-afternoon snack which makes you fuller for longer boosts your metabolism.

    Keeping everything constant, calories and macro nutrients.

    Eating 2x a day will release x amount of glucose and y amount o insulin.

    Eating 6x a day will release x amount of glucose and y amount of insulin.

    in a 24hr period, it's the same.
    As someone with insulin resistance (pre diabetes) I agree with you totally. It's the amount of sugar over all, not how often you eat.
  • WannaDizzolve
    WannaDizzolve Posts: 270 Member
    small high protein, low carb noshes all day. Literally every hour or 2. No huge meals. it's how i function, and i'm pretty active. of course, i'm now visiting my mother which makes this form of eating all but impossible.
  • MoJokes
    MoJokes Posts: 691
    Eat when you are hungry.

    This.

    Personally... i just do fistful carbs, protein palm size, lots of veg. done.
  • bobf279
    bobf279 Posts: 342 Member
    I'm in the 3 meals and 2 or 3 snacks brigade and I am steadily losing weight by making sure I have a calorie deficit most days. Occasionally I only have 2 meals usually weekends with a late but substantial breakfast and decent sized dinner.
  • charismanoodles
    charismanoodles Posts: 343 Member
    I like 5 small meals because I am at uni all day, and my energy slumps if I don't snack. When I was working a desk job though I was on 3 meals a day. Do what feels right for you.
  • SammiSpring
    SammiSpring Posts: 18
    It depends only on what you prefer. For some people, more meals take away hunger.

    For me, I like 3 filling meals vs. 5-6 small ones. Snacking just makes me more hungry! This way I'm also not thinking of food all day. I eat three times and can get on with my life. Plus, dentists say 3 meals is better, it's how our ancestors and people in thin countries eat (French actually uses the American term 'snacking', because we are the country that invented it. More thin countries are starting to eat between meals and their obesity rates are climbing as a result).

    I hear that numerous meals increasing the metabolism is mostly a myth. There is a slight increase, but not big enough to matter or make much of a difference.

    So whatever you personally prefer, and whatever keeps you on track, is the best way to go.
  • Mock_Turtle
    Mock_Turtle Posts: 354 Member
    meal timing is irrelevant unless you're a mega serious athlete or training for something severe like a marathon.

    It's more important for you to hit your daily calorie goals - whether that's in 1 meal, 2 meals, 3 , 6 or 12 snacks ..... do whatever is easiest for you.
  • mistesh
    mistesh Posts: 243 Member
    I was also listening to a radio documentary a few months ago that said that 'grazing' was probably a contributing factor to obesity in the Western world. Even as short a time ago as the 70s we had an average of 4-5 hours between meals and now apparently it's about 2.

    Thank you. I have been looking for an opening to reference the following.

    "In 2006, 97% of people reported consuming snacks on a regular basis, up from 71% in the 1970′s. The total contribution of the snacks to daily calorie consumption also rose from 18% to 24% during that time. That means the average American now gets about a quarter of their calories from snacks."

    http://keepingitrealfood.com/2010/01/23/snacks-now-account-for-a-quarter-of-daily-calories/

    "The estimated age-adjusted percentage of overweight U.S. adults between the ages of 20 and 74 increased from about 43 percent in 1960-2 to about 54 percent in 1988-94
    The fraction of the population that is obese - that is, with a BMI greater than 30 - increased from about 14 percent in the mid-1970s to about 29 percent in 2000."

    http://www.nber.org/digest/apr06/w11584.html

    And then there's today of course. And the future.
  • mistesh
    mistesh Posts: 243 Member
    Diabetics and borderline diabetic's pancreas cannot handle the major influx of insulin needed for one large meal. Sugar spikes and they have issues. So, unless you far in one of the 3 numbers above...whatever fits your day is best. Since there are a lot of obese folks on here, who may be borderline and don't know it, it is best to go with more frequency of meals until they out of danger of any unforeseen diabetic problem.

    People are somewhat divided on this. Joel Fuhrman, M.D., is an American board-certified family physician who specializes in nutrition-based treatments for obesity and chronic disease. He is also the author of a recent book entitled The End of Diabetes: The Eat to Live Plan to Prevent and Reverse Diabetes. Having read it, my impression is that he thinks that for diabetics a high meal frequency is a last resort, as there are various other things you can address first, in particular what is eaten.
  • conorpatmanCHANGED
    conorpatmanCHANGED Posts: 253 Member
    i have 3 meals (or 2 on the weekends usually) and a snack but whatever works for you is best

Categories