6 meals a day is a lie. Your metabolism won't slow down.

For me, I feel deprived when a meal consists of only 200-300 cals lol! I think that as long as your calorie count remains consistent, you're going to lose weight...regardless of when you eat them.

However, I find that a 200-300 calorie breakfast and lunch (spaced out by around 2-3 hours), a 100-200 calorie snack (about 2 hours after lunch), a 400-500 calorie dinner (about 2-3 hours after the snack) and a glass of wine or piece of chocolate usually rounds out a good day for me...feel free to rip apart!

I personally like having 5 to 6 meals a day since I don't want to put my body into starvation mode, with all the weight training I do i need to constantly fuel my muscle.

yeah maybe that fasting stuff works, but if you lift weights you'll pass out doing that kind of dieting.

NO, you won't!!! I thought I would too, but I just eat a smaller meal 1 hr before my workout and I feel great! I fasted before my leg workout Wednesday and my upper body power workout yesterday and I was just as strong as ever. I was squatting 275 atg for reps, and did some sumo dead lifts for reps too, touch and go. No light headedness, no problems! Then after the workout, all the carbs and proteins I can stuff in my face, and it all gets used to build MUSCLE, along with a surge in insulin to help all of my supplements get absorbed.

I eat 3 meals and 2-3 "snacks" (i.e. piece of fruit, etc) throughout the day. Keeps me from feeling like I need to be munching on something all the time. So I typically eat something about every 3 hours.

I eat my 5 meals roughly 300+ calories keeps me a pretty happy camper. I used to eat just three times a day but felt hungry all the time so I just balance out my meals. Each to their own.

And while the fasting thing may work for some people for weight loss, it does not work for me...but not because of weight issues. I get really REALLY bad headaches if I don't have a bite to eat every so often...

Like NOW for example. I was supposed to go out to eat with someone that cancelled...so not only am I am hungry, but I have a headache starting to form.

While I agree that your metabolism won't come to a screeching halt because you miss a meal here or there, I just don't like the side effects it personally gives me.

...and the Nobel peace prize goes to....TateFTW :bigsmile:

I don't know about it being a lie, but I know it does not work for me. 4 is the magic number for me!!!

I have never seen anyone who deprive themselves of calories gain weight the way the experts say they do.

Happened to me. I was exercising very intensely and only consuming 800-900 cal/day after all was said and done, and I quit losing and then began gaining. I gained almost 10 lbs. during that time.

I have never seen anyone who deprive themselves of calories gain weight the way the experts say they do.

Happened to me. I was exercising very intensely and only consuming 800-900 cal/day after all was said and done, and I quit losing and then began gaining. I gained almost 10 lbs. during that time.

If you go from eating maintenance to a consistent deficit, it takes about 2 weeks (depending on the person and the deficit) for your metabolism to fully react and shift downward. to compensate for your new intake. This is why I came to the conclusion that weekly deficit is the main determining dietary factor in fat/weight loss.

Lets say someone with a maintenance level of 1500 calories/day (or 10500/week) suddenly goes on a diet consuming 700 calories a day and exercising 1 hr/day, burning an average of 200 calories during each workout session. They are now consuming 3500 net calories a week [7(700-200)=3500], resulting in a deficit of 7000 calories for the week, which would theoretically result in 2 lbs of fat loss. In fact, under the assumption that not all of the weight lost would be fat, the weight loss would be even greater, since it takes less of a deficit to lose lean mass. But this is all based on faulty logic, because almost immediately the metabolism would start shifting downward. After approximately 2 weeks the metabolism would have shifted down relative to the consistent downward shift in intake.

This really has very little to do with daily intake, or even intake over a number of consecutive days, and shouldn't be treated as such.

This is why I believe that the weekly deficit is really the most important thing to which we should pay attention. The 7000 calorie deficit in my example is far too large for someone with such a low maintenance level to start.

Therefore, theoretically, someone who was consuming 300 calories in a day could be more successful than someone consuming 700 calories in a day, if the former was only consuming 300 calories on certain days and consuming far more on others, and the latter was only consuming 700 calories every single day, because only the latter would experience a sever change in metabolic rates, assuming other factors were the same.

I have not come across any well-designed studies that empirically support the idea the more frequent meals have any more beneficial effect on weight loss than less-frequent meals. In most cases such as this, the auto-suggestive effect of belief in a certain principle is the driving force behind any benefits. So, someone who believes that eating 6 meals a day is more beneficial might achieve success because that belief encourages greater adherence to maintaining a caloric deficit, but it is the maintenance of the caloric deficit that results in the improvement, not any physical effects of eating 6 meals a day.

Now, strong belief that leads to greater adherence is not insignificant, so I don' t mean to diminish the "power of positive thinking", if you will. I just think it is necessary to separate "faith" from "facts" in this case.

Hey I didn't mean to upset anybody. People get very emotional when it comes to their firmly held convictions being challenged. I'm everyone's friend on here. Maybe the use of the word lie was unnecessary but I wanted an intelligent debate so I used a headline grabbing word. You can eat 10 meals a day if you want but I am just challenging the notion of metabolism slowing down when you don't eat for a few hours. As well as the sites I listed below also check out the Warrior diet. Tom Venuto also explains this in some detail on his site. Keep an open mind. Peace!

Since you just joined last month, you may not be aware that nobody thinks that one's metabolism slows down if one doesn't eat for a few hours.

I looked at your profile. I think you are a trouble maker trying to drum up business for yourself. That is not allowed on this forum.

I'm a fan of Martin Berkham - Leangains website, Lyle Mcdonald - Body recomposition website, Brad Pillon - Eat stop Eat website. Check em out people! Don't listen to the stuff they write about in Mens/Womens health mags. It always contradicts itself. The diet industry aims to confuse so they can sell you more 'magic' diet solutions.

Why are you on a site like this then? While MFP doesn't outwardly promote eating several smaller meals a day, it does recommend it (see default food diary settings).

It doesn't recommend it at all, those settings are there just to show you that you could have more than just the three meals if you wish in my opinion.

It is the calories in -v- calories out that determines weightloss, not the amount of meals you eat per day. I reinforced this by eating only three meals per day and lost all my excess weight.

Too much emphasis is being placed on metabolism here. The metabolism will never come to a complete standstill, the day it does is the day you die.

It is about time people got stuck into a healthy living plan and quit constantly thinking about grub, because that is what you are doing if you eat numerous meals per day, you are constantly planning for the next piece of food to go into your mouth.

Six meals per day, for me, would have been a definite no-no, this was a life changing plan for me, not just a weighloss one, therefore I started as I meant to go on, even after I reached my goal.

I also do a lot of sport and like to have at least a two hour break between eating and exercising, I am completely against exercising just after eating and if I were to eat six meals per day (apart from having measly portions due to only having been on 1200 calories per day = 200 calories per meal?!?!?!?!) I would not have enough hours in the day to fit in work, eat and exercise - my whole life, in fact, would have revolved around food - not a good thing when it is that food that I am trying to cut down on.

I'm a fan of Martin Berkham - Leangains website, Lyle Mcdonald - Body recomposition website, Brad Pillon - Eat stop Eat website. Check em out people! Don't listen to the stuff they write about in Mens/Womens health mags. It always contradicts itself. The diet industry aims to confuse so they can sell you more 'magic' diet solutions.

Why are you on a site like this then? While MFP doesn't outwardly promote eating several smaller meals a day, it does recommend it (see default food diary settings).

It doesn't recommend it at all, those settings are there just to show you that you could have more than just the three meals if you wish in my opinion.

It is the calories in -v- calories out that determines weightloss, not the amount of meals you eat per day. I reinforced this by eating only three meals per day and lost all my excess weight.

Too much emphasis is being placed on metabolism here. The metabolism will never come to a complete standstill, the day it does is the day you die.

It is about time people got stuck into a healthy living plan and quit constantly thinking about grub, because that is what you are doing if you eat numerous meals per day, you are constantly planning for the next piece of food to go into your mouth.

Six meals per day, for me, would have been a definite no-no, this was a life changing plan for me, not just a weighloss one, therefore I started as I meant to go on, even after I reached my goal.

I also do a lot of sport and like to have at least a two hour break between eating and exercising, I am completely against exercising just after eating and if I were to eat six meals per day (apart from having measly portions due to only having been on 1200 calories per day = 200 calories per meal?!?!?!?!) I would not have enough hours in the day to fit in work, eat and exercise - my whole life, in fact, would have revolved around food - not a good thing when it is that food that I am trying to cut down on.

So why is it completely impossible for smaller meals or snacks to not be a way of life? I ALWAYS have snacks, whether its yogurt or fruit or some sort of baked chip or something. And it's not disturbing or difficult and I don't constantly plan the next piece of food. When you get into the habit of snacks you tend to just have stuff around and available, so its not difficult. I don't think its necessarily fair to say that eating several smaller meals or snacks simply to assuage hunger is not conducive to a lifestyle change. Yes, if I was planning snacks and eating them just because I felt I should that might suck. But there are plenty of people who have said they do this because they are HUNGRY. I've lost almost 80 lbs while snacking away since January. And I don't feel like bringing a yogurt to the office to eat at around 10 is disruptive or not sustainable.

I'm a fan of Martin Berkham - Leangains website, Lyle Mcdonald - Body recomposition website, Brad Pillon - Eat stop Eat website. Check em out people! Don't listen to the stuff they write about in Mens/Womens health mags. It always contradicts itself. The diet industry aims to confuse so they can sell you more 'magic' diet solutions.

Why are you on a site like this then? While MFP doesn't outwardly promote eating several smaller meals a day, it does recommend it (see default food diary settings).

It doesn't recommend it at all, those settings are there just to show you that you could have more than just the three meals if you wish in my opinion.

It is the calories in -v- calories out that determines weightloss, not the amount of meals you eat per day. I reinforced this by eating only three meals per day and lost all my excess weight.

Too much emphasis is being placed on metabolism here. The metabolism will never come to a complete standstill, the day it does is the day you die.

It is about time people got stuck into a healthy living plan and quit constantly thinking about grub, because that is what you are doing if you eat numerous meals per day, you are constantly planning for the next piece of food to go into your mouth.

Six meals per day, for me, would have been a definite no-no, this was a life changing plan for me, not just a weighloss one, therefore I started as I meant to go on, even after I reached my goal.

I also do a lot of sport and like to have at least a two hour break between eating and exercising, I am completely against exercising just after eating and if I were to eat six meals per day (apart from having measly portions due to only having been on 1200 calories per day = 200 calories per meal?!?!?!?!) I would not have enough hours in the day to fit in work, eat and exercise - my whole life, in fact, would have revolved around food - not a good thing when it is that food that I am trying to cut down on.

So why is it completely impossible for smaller meals or snacks to not be a way of life? I ALWAYS have snacks, whether its yogurt or fruit or some sort of baked chip or something. And it's not disturbing or difficult and I don't constantly plan the next piece of food. When you get into the habit of snacks you tend to just have stuff around and available, so its not difficult. I don't think its necessarily fair to say that eating several smaller meals or snacks simply to assuage hunger is not conducive to a lifestyle change. Yes, if I was planning snacks and eating them just because I felt I should that might suck. But there are plenty of people who have said they do this because they are HUNGRY. I've lost almost 80 lbs while snacking away since January. And I don't feel like bringing a yogurt to the office to eat at around 10 is disruptive or not sustainable.

Smaller meals?? 200 calories per meal is bloody small if you ask me and if I ate just 200 calories for one meal, (1200 calories per day, 6 meals per day = 200 calories), I would indeed need snacks inbetween. As it turned out, I preferred something substantial for each meal and cut out any snacks.

Each to his/her own and if somebody wishes to eat such small meals, good for them, personally, I would find it incredibly difficult to sustain that and would have broken my eating plan, hence why I didn't eat that way.

I would also have found eating six meals per day would have consumed my every waking moment, something I would have found ultimately boring and bordering on the obsessive.

I'm a fan of Martin Berkham - Leangains website, Lyle Mcdonald - Body recomposition website, Brad Pillon - Eat stop Eat website. Check em out people! Don't listen to the stuff they write about in Mens/Womens health mags. It always contradicts itself. The diet industry aims to confuse so they can sell you more 'magic' diet solutions.

Why are you on a site like this then? While MFP doesn't outwardly promote eating several smaller meals a day, it does recommend it (see default food diary settings).

It doesn't recommend it at all, those settings are there just to show you that you could have more than just the three meals if you wish in my opinion.

It is the calories in -v- calories out that determines weightloss, not the amount of meals you eat per day. I reinforced this by eating only three meals per day and lost all my excess weight.

Too much emphasis is being placed on metabolism here. The metabolism will never come to a complete standstill, the day it does is the day you die.

It is about time people got stuck into a healthy living plan and quit constantly thinking about grub, because that is what you are doing if you eat numerous meals per day, you are constantly planning for the next piece of food to go into your mouth.

Six meals per day, for me, would have been a definite no-no, this was a life changing plan for me, not just a weighloss one, therefore I started as I meant to go on, even after I reached my goal.

I also do a lot of sport and like to have at least a two hour break between eating and exercising, I am completely against exercising just after eating and if I were to eat six meals per day (apart from having measly portions due to only having been on 1200 calories per day = 200 calories per meal?!?!?!?!) I would not have enough hours in the day to fit in work, eat and exercise - my whole life, in fact, would have revolved around food - not a good thing when it is that food that I am trying to cut down on.

So why is it completely impossible for smaller meals or snacks to not be a way of life? I ALWAYS have snacks, whether its yogurt or fruit or some sort of baked chip or something. And it's not disturbing or difficult and I don't constantly plan the next piece of food. When you get into the habit of snacks you tend to just have stuff around and available, so its not difficult. I don't think its necessarily fair to say that eating several smaller meals or snacks simply to assuage hunger is not conducive to a lifestyle change. Yes, if I was planning snacks and eating them just because I felt I should that might suck. But there are plenty of people who have said they do this because they are HUNGRY. I've lost almost 80 lbs while snacking away since January. And I don't feel like bringing a yogurt to the office to eat at around 10 is disruptive or not sustainable.

Smaller meals?? 200 calories per meal is bloody small if you ask me and if I ate just 200 calories for one meal, (1200 calories per day, 6 meals per day = 200 calories), I would indeed need snacks inbetween. As it turned out, I preferred something substantial for each meal and cut out any snacks.

Each to his/her own and if somebody wishes to eat such small meals, good for them, personally, I would find it incredibly difficult to sustain that and would have broken my eating plan, hence why I didn't eat that way.

I would also have found eating six meals per day would have consumed my every waking moment, something I would have found ultimately boring and bordering on the obsessive.

@Lotus -

You are so right!!! When I used to think this way I was always having to carry a lunch cooler with me and needless to say it didn't last long because it is not sustainable and no one plans their life out that much.

That is why I love Intermittent Fasting. There is so much freedom!!