Is their truth in this?
balancedbrunette
Posts: 530 Member
Was just doing some reading online yesterday and came across this article with this included:
Eat 5-6 Small Meals A Day.
Unlike most people's string of painfully low-calorie days, which puts the body in a fat-storing mode since it has no idea when it will be fed next, eating a small meal every three hours keeps our muscles in a fat-burning mode since they're receiving a steady but not excessive supply of nutrients.
This practice also helps increase our energy levels and fight the hungry feeling that often leads to cheating with fat-building, between-meal snacks. Eating only 2-3 large meals a day like most people, however, can overwhelm our bodies. Since they can only use a certain amount of food at a time, the remainder will usually be stored as fat.
Originally from here: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/phano43.htm
There is a lot of truth in the things said in this article so I'm just wondering about the above, i usually eat smaller meals but sometimes my schedule does not allow it, does it matter as long as you are under or maintaining caloric intake what size the meal is or are you more likely to cause fat storage eating a bigger meal in a short amount of time..
Just wondering what are people's thoughts on this
Eat 5-6 Small Meals A Day.
Unlike most people's string of painfully low-calorie days, which puts the body in a fat-storing mode since it has no idea when it will be fed next, eating a small meal every three hours keeps our muscles in a fat-burning mode since they're receiving a steady but not excessive supply of nutrients.
This practice also helps increase our energy levels and fight the hungry feeling that often leads to cheating with fat-building, between-meal snacks. Eating only 2-3 large meals a day like most people, however, can overwhelm our bodies. Since they can only use a certain amount of food at a time, the remainder will usually be stored as fat.
Originally from here: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/phano43.htm
There is a lot of truth in the things said in this article so I'm just wondering about the above, i usually eat smaller meals but sometimes my schedule does not allow it, does it matter as long as you are under or maintaining caloric intake what size the meal is or are you more likely to cause fat storage eating a bigger meal in a short amount of time..
Just wondering what are people's thoughts on this
0
Replies
-
Nope. There is no advantage to any particular meal timing other than your own personal preference and performance.0
-
NopE0
-
Nope. For all your body cares you could eat one meal, as long as it gets it's calories/macros to function properly.
It's a matter of preference0 -
That is false. There is no need to eat a certain amount of a meals a day. Eating breakfast or eating 5-6 meals a day will not make you lose more weight nor will it increase your metabolism. Eat when you are hungry and when you are able to.0
-
Was just doing some reading online yesterday and came across this article with this included:
Eat 5-6 Small Meals A Day.
Unlike most people's string of painfully low-calorie days, which puts the body in a fat-storing mode since it has no idea when it will be fed next, eating a small meal every three hours keeps our muscles in a fat-burning mode since they're receiving a steady but not excessive supply of nutrients.
This practice also helps increase our energy levels and fight the hungry feeling that often leads to cheating with fat-building, between-meal snacks. Eating only 2-3 large meals a day like most people, however, can overwhelm our bodies. Since they can only use a certain amount of food at a time, the remainder will usually be stored as fat.
Originally from here: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/phano43.htm
There is a lot of truth in the things said in this article so I'm just wondering about the above, i usually eat smaller meals but sometimes my schedule does not allow it, does it matter as long as you are under or maintaining caloric intake what size the meal is or are you more likely to cause fat storage eating a bigger meal in a short amount of time..
Just wondering what are people's thoughts on this
Not really. Some people thrive on 5-6 small meals a day, while some thrive on one huge meal a day. It's all personal preference. Personally, if I don't eat every 3-4 hours, I'm the most hangry, evil wench you'll ever meet. That's just me though I have several people on my FL that do intermittent fasting and will go 16 hours w/o eating, and they're doing great. 0 -
no. calories in v calories out. if 5 or 6 small meals helps you stay on track though, go for it.0
-
Was just doing some reading online yesterday and came across this article with this included:
Eat 5-6 Small Meals A Day.
Unlike most people's string of painfully low-calorie days, which puts the body in a fat-storing mode since it has no idea when it will be fed next, eating a small meal every three hours keeps our muscles in a fat-burning mode since they're receiving a steady but not excessive supply of nutrients.
This practice also helps increase our energy levels and fight the hungry feeling that often leads to cheating with fat-building, between-meal snacks. Eating only 2-3 large meals a day like most people, however, can overwhelm our bodies. Since they can only use a certain amount of food at a time, the remainder will usually be stored as fat.
Originally from here: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/phano43.htm
There is a lot of truth in the things said in this article so I'm just wondering about the above, i usually eat smaller meals but sometimes my schedule does not allow it, does it matter as long as you are under or maintaining caloric intake what size the meal is or are you more likely to cause fat storage eating a bigger meal in a short amount of time..
Just wondering what are people's thoughts on this
Hi! Never personally tried this, but it was recommended by my doctor. He said to get too your goal weight, females should be eating 1700-1800 cals/day & men 1800-2100...and just try to spread that out evenly; whether we're eating 3 566 cal meals or 6 283 cal meals.
Everyone's different, so whatever works, eh? I've been eating 3 meals/day and feel great...and I'm still losing.
) The bottom line is the overall cal intake. 0 -
This has been discussed here often, and a recurring theme is that it differs so greatly from person to person that it's not sound advice for all.
Some people benefit from small meals because it helps curb cravings and prevents them from overeating because they're never actually hungry hungry.
Some people find it only increases their appetite so they eat more than they should.
Others are content with 2-3 big meals a day without snacks or small meals.
There's no scientific evidence that it benefits the body when you eat many small meals, and it takes more than a couple of hours of being hungry before the body changes its metabolism. The key is to try out different meal setups for a couple of weeks and move on to a different one until you find one that works for you. Your body will adjust to one or the other eventually.0 -
I can't do eat like that. I start grazing and then my eating spirals out of control (I am very much a compulsive eater). I do much better with set meals and if I'm really hungry, a very light snack.0
-
I think the notion that eating frequently revs up your metabolism has been well debunked, and at the end of the day it comes down to IIFYM and personal preferences. For me, I eat 5-6 "meals" a day, but that's because it helps me keep my blood sugar regulated more than anything. If your schedule only allows you 3 meals or however it works for you, you just have to find balanced ways to keep your macros where they need to be. I find that more important for me than food frequency is my ratios of p/c/f, because if that goes out of whack that's when I get hungry with no "real" reason for it.
Edited to add that the routine of my meals does a lot for me as well, like having set times I eat throughout the day definitely helps me mentally stop myself from snacking.0 -
I know many whom have tried the 5-6 or even 7-8 small meals, and some whom have done a fasting type of program, at the end of the day, if they burned more than they ate, pounds dropped, if they ate more than they burned, pounds went up. I have had the benefit of trying different types of meal plan methods, just to see how my body reacted, and the results were the same whether the meals were split up, or grouped closer together.
Honestly, whichever meal plan method works for you will be the best. I kind of go back and forth on the meal splits and groupings depending on my goals at that time. When I want to lose a bit of fat, but want to feel more full when I eat, I group my meals closer together, such as intermittent fasting. If I am looking to put on a bit of size and increase muscle growth, which consists of eating more food, I split everything up throughout the day as I do not generally have a huge appetite in one sitting. It's up to you, whichever method proves to be something you like and can stick with, will be the right one for you 0 -
The difference in your metabolism due to meal timing is minimal. Eating at intervals that keeps you satisfied enough to stay within your goals long terms makes a huge difference.0
-
I too am of the hangry variety. I eat *something* every couple of hours or risk going on a food rampage. For me the key is measuring and eating literally 1 serving of whatever my snack is. But I end up eating 6+ times a day... 3 snacks 3 "meals"... typically more snacks if my meals are lighter.
edit - this has nothing to do with my metabolism though it just keeps me from feeling like I want to eat an entire pizza...0 -
I tend to eat 3 meals a day and then 2 smaller snacks - the snacks are late in the afternoon and then post-workout. I've found that the snacks keep me from getting so hungry that I'm eating out or eating the first thing I can get my hands on at home, which usually means calorie-dense and not very healthy.
There are some here at MFP that claim you are no special snowflake and it's purely calories-in-calories-out. That may be true but different things work for different people so, as long as you're within your calorie goals, experiment to see what works for you.0 -
Thanks everyone for the replies, interesting to hear what others have to say. I have been steadily loosing weight all along so what I have been doing has worked for me guess this article just boggled me a bit as there was so much truth in the other points posed it got me second guessing myself. I'm going to stick with what I'm doing but it was good to get some advice.0
-
I eat 5-6 small meals per day because I feel better when I eat something every 2-3 hours, but that's just me.
As others have mentioned, the timing of your meals has no impact on your body's ability to process the calories - not even if you eat at bedtime 0 -
Is "THERE" not their!0
-
Like others have said it's about personal preference.
When I ate three meals a day with 2 decent snacks I was hungry constantly, I now just eat twice a day and fewer calories and the constant hunger pangs have gone.0 -
No but I personally like eating smaller meals or snacking throughout the day. If I'm starving, I'm more likely to make bad choices.0
-
no. calories in v calories out. if 5 or 6 small meals helps you stay on track though, go for it.0
-
No but I personally like eating smaller meals or snacking throughout the day. If I'm starving, I'm more likely to make bad choices.
This!
I plan my meals ahead of time and pack it all in a lunch box. I eat periodically throughout the day rather than having 3 large meals.0 -
Personally I have had the best luck by eating 3 meals and 2-3 snacks depending on my calorie level0
-
This has been discussed here often, and a recurring theme is that it differs so greatly from person to person that it's not sound advice for all.
Some people benefit from small meals because it helps curb cravings and prevents them from overeating because they're never actually hungry hungry.
Some people find it only increases their appetite so they eat more than they should.
Others are content with 2-3 big meals a day without snacks or small meals.
There's no scientific evidence that it benefits the body when you eat many small meals, and it takes more than a couple of hours of being hungry before the body changes its metabolism. The key is to try out different meal setups for a couple of weeks and move on to a different one until you find one that works for you. Your body will adjust to one or the other eventually.
Ever since I switched to 5-6 meals a day, I've noticed a difference, but like what everyone else says, it's what works for me. Regardless of whether I have 2 or 6 meals in one day, I try to stay under my calorie goal. So, if I know that I'm going to be eating a large meal, then I'll cut back on my smaller meals or eliminate them. It has also helped to curb my hunger throughout the day, but it was difficult adjusting at first. Now, I wouldn't have it any other way.0 -
Nope. For all your body cares you could eat one meal, as long as it gets it's calories/macros to function properly.
It's a matter of preference
This0 -
Is "THERE" not their!
^ thank you ^
Now carry on...0 -
I think people are being too quick to dismiss this advice. It's true, weight-loss is calories in and calories out. It doesn't matter if you eat 1500 calories in five 300-calories meals or in one 1500 calorie feast. HOWEVER...
I find it MUCH easier to stay on the program by eating 5-6 mini-meals. Typically I eat 4 "mini-meals" of 1/6 of my calorie goal for the day, and then double up at dinner - this makes it easier to manage eating out, dinner with the family, etc.
Large meals create a significant reaction from your body, specifically on your blood sugar levels. For me, I find a blood sugar spike and then a subsequent crash - the "afternoon slump" that happens after you eat a big lunch. The cure for the crash? Eat something! Preferably something with SUGAR in it! And so the sugar roller coaster ride begins. The last time it took me 12 years to get off.
When you eat smaller meals consisting of protein and complex whole grain carbs, you'll feel more consistent - fewer energy spikes and crashes... fewer cravings. So much more in control. So much easier to stay on track and stay under for the day. This is one of the keys to my program, and how I lost 50 pounds.
Here's an article about blood sugar response to large meals. Something to think about before you just dismiss it.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/484919-big-meal-effect-on-glucose-level/0 -
I think people are being too quick to dismiss this advice. It's true, weight-loss is calories in and calories out. It doesn't matter if you eat 1500 calories in five 300-calories meals or in one 1500 calorie feast. HOWEVER...
I find it MUCH easier to stay on the program by eating 5-6 mini-meals. Typically I eat 4 "mini-meals" of 1/6 of my calorie goal for the day, and then double up at dinner - this makes it easier to manage eating out, dinner with the family, etc.
Large meals create a significant reaction from your body, specifically on your blood sugar levels. For me, I find a blood sugar spike and then a subsequent crash - the "afternoon slump" that happens after you eat a big lunch. The cure for the crash? Eat something! Preferably something with SUGAR in it! And so the sugar roller coaster ride begins. The last time it took me 12 years to get off.
When you eat smaller meals consisting of protein and complex whole grain carbs, you'll feel more consistent - fewer energy spikes and crashes... fewer cravings. So much more in control. So much easier to stay on track and stay under for the day. This is one of the keys to my program, and how I lost 50 pounds.
Here's an article about blood sugar response to large meals. Something to think about before you just dismiss it.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/484919-big-meal-effect-on-glucose-level/
"2. Myth: Eat smaller meals more often for hunger control.
Truth
Given the importance of finding the most favorable meal pattern for hunger and appetite control, there's a surprising scarcity of studies on the topic. The most widely cited study is one where obese males were fed 33% of their daily calorie requirement ("pre-load") in either one single meal or five meals before being allowed to eat ad libitum five hours later (meaning as much as they desired).
A: One single meal was consumed. 5 hours later they were free to eat as much as they desired, "buffet"-style.
B: Same setup as above. However, the single meal was now split into five smaller meals, which were consumed every hour leading up to the ad libitum meal.
The results showed that subjects undergoing "A" ate 27% more calories when given the ad libitum meal. The same setup was used by the same researchers on lean males and showed similar results. However, upon closer scrutiny it's clear how little real world application those results have. The macrocomposition of the pre-load was 70% carbs, 15% fat and 15% protein; given as pasta, ice cream and orange juice. The situation created was highly artificial and abnormal. Who sits around nibbling on pasta and ice cream, sipping orange juice, every hour leading up to a regular meal?
The latest research, performed under conditions that more closely resemble a real-world scenario, shows the opposite result. In this study, three high-protein meals lead to greater fullness and appetite control when compared to six high-protein meals. You can read my summary of the study here: Three Meals Superior for Appetite Control.
There's no doubt that meal frequency is highly individual. However, absolute statements claiming smaller meals are superior for hunger and appetite control are untrue and are based on studies using methods that greatly differed from real-world meal patterns. Current research with a normal meal pattern and protein intakes that are closer to what can be seen in a typical non-retarded diet, suggests superior appetite control when eating fewer and larger meals."0 -
"3. Myth: Eat small meals to keep blood sugar levels under control.
Truth
According to legions of diet and health "experts," eating small meals every so often will help you avoid hunger pangs, provide you with stable energy throughout the day and keep you mentally sharp. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, blood sugar is extremely well-regulated and maintained within a tight range in healthy people. It does not swing wildly up and down like a chimpanzee on meth and it doesn't plummet from going a few hours without food. Or even a full day without food. Or a week without food for that matter.
People seem to believe they will suffer severe hunger and mental impairment from not eating every so often. Consider for a second the evolutionary consequences for survival if this was true. Given that regular periods of fasting, even famine, was a natural part of our past, do you think we'd be here today if we were unable to function when obtaining food was most critical? I have seen healthy young males, bodybuilders nonetheless, complain of lethargy and mental haze if they didn't get to eat for a few hours. It's completely absurd. But I digress...
Maintaining blood sugar is of very high priority and we have developed efficient pathways that will make it happen even under extreme conditions. If you were to fast for 23 hrs and then go for a 90 min run at 70-75% VO2max, your blood sugar after the run would be identical to the same run performed in the fed state. It would take no less than three days or 84 hours of fasting to reach blood sugar levels low enough to affect your mental state; and this is temporary, as your brain adapts to the use of ketones. During 48 hours of fasting, or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range no measure of cognitive performance is negatively affected.
For more on blood sugar, read my review of Eat Stop Eat Expanded Edition, which includes a relevant excerpt. Also, keep in mind that the above cited studies are all performed under conditions that are much more extreme than the fasting protocol I, or Brad Pilon, recommends.
What about blood sugar and hunger? Blood sugar is one of many short-term feedback mechanisms used to regulate hunger and the notion which exists to say that low blood sugar may cause hunger is correct. Low just means lower range. This is subject to numerous confounders, such as your habitual diet, energy intake and genetics. Most importantly perhaps, it's subject to entrained meal patterns, regulated by ghrelin and other metabolic hormones. In essence, this means that blood sugar follows the meal pattern you are used to. This is relevant for those who fear blood sugar issues and hunger from regular periods of fasting, as it serves to explain why people can easily adapt to regular periods of fasting without negative effects.
"0 -
thanks everyone that actually replied with advice and not grammar corrections (honest mistake by the way). will check out that article on leangains. 0
-
surely no one needs to be told how to eat and how often.
As long as you know the difference between hungry and just wanting to 'pig out' surely its common sense to eat when you are hungry and keep within your calories goal.
you can read all sorts of things regarding when to eat but the best idea surely is to listen to your body.
All the slim people I know and that includes my family (I'm the only fatty in the house) eat when they are hungry, if they are not hungry they will turn there dinner down or leave most of it, Where as in my previous life I would stuff the lot, feel sick and still eat more.
I think the key is learning to listen to your body.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions