Is their truth in this?

Options
2»

Replies

  • BattleTaxi
    BattleTaxi Posts: 752 Member
    Options
    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.
  • larsen626
    larsen626 Posts: 99 Member
    Options
    Personally I have had the best luck by eating 3 meals and 2-3 snacks depending on my calorie level
  • IamDIVAlicious
    IamDIVAlicious Posts: 19
    Options
    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.
  • PJ64
    PJ64 Posts: 866 Member
    Options
    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


    This
  • Fit_NYC_
    Fit_NYC_ Posts: 1,389 Member
    Options
    Is "THERE" not their!

    ^ thank you ^

    Now carry on...
  • paxbfl
    paxbfl Posts: 391 Member
    Options
    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/
  • ritchiedrama
    ritchiedrama Posts: 1,304 Member
    Options
    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."
  • ritchiedrama
    ritchiedrama Posts: 1,304 Member
    Options
    "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.
    "
  • balancedbrunette
    balancedbrunette Posts: 530 Member
    Options
    thanks everyone that actually replied with advice and not grammar corrections (honest mistake by the way) :). will check out that article on leangains.
  • margebouvierx2
    margebouvierx2 Posts: 53
    Options
    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.
  • paxbfl
    paxbfl Posts: 391 Member
    Options

    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.

    Who conducted this study? This contradicts other studies.

    Another cycle is created when you lose control of your blood sugar: hunger for more big meals. The first time you have an especially large meal, your insulin response can bring down your glucose levels so low that you want to eat more because your body thinks it's starving. This effect is exaggerated as you get older, according to a group of Tufts University researchers in the "Journal of Gerontology." In their experiment, older people who ate large meals of between 2,000 and 4,000 calories had more extreme blood sugar responses, and it took longer for their blood sugar to return to normal. Moreover, their poor blood sugar control impaired their ability to control their food intake.

    Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/484919-big-meal-effect-on-glucose-level/#ixzz2cd66Hd4c

    On some days they were given the entire 674.8 calories at once, on other days they got a quarter of the calories (168.7, if you've forgotten your long division) once every hour for four hours.

    The researchers found that the men who had the four mini-breakfasts were less hungry at lunchtime. This was corroborated by changes in two food-related hormones in the men, and , that are consistent with decreased appetite.

    -online edition of the journal Physiology & Behavior.

Categories