Meals vs. Continuous Snacking

Options
inupendi
inupendi Posts: 6
in Health and Weight Loss
I've heard that eating many small meals throughout the day is healthier than having 3 larger meals each day. Thoughts?

Replies

  • Veil5577
    Veil5577 Posts: 868 Member
    Options
    It really depends on what will work for you. Some people successfully lose weight with a lot of smaller meals than eating the normal 3.

    All I know is, before we became constant grazers and only ate 3 balanced meals a day, we didn't have the obesity problem we have now.
  • thavoice
    thavoice Posts: 1,326 Member
    Options
    I've heard that eating many small meals throughout the day is healthier than having 3 larger meals each day. Thoughts?
    You heard wrong. If you eat the same amount of calories in 1, 2, 3, 4 or 6 meals it doesnt matter.
  • I_Will_End_You
    I_Will_End_You Posts: 4,397 Member
    Options
    Nope. It all comes down to personal preference. I prefer to eat two meals a day, with little to no snacking in between. Others like to break it up into small meals/snacks. Whatever helps you stay within your calorie goal will work.
  • MityMax96
    MityMax96 Posts: 5,778 Member
    Options
    I've heard that eating many small meals throughout the day is healthier than having 3 larger meals each day. Thoughts?

    Eat when you want..... :wink:
    You will do just fine.
  • BombshellPhoenix
    BombshellPhoenix Posts: 1,693 Member
    Options
    Nope. Doesn't matter.

    For me, if I try to snack all day I end up never full and miserable. I love a few big meals.

    It's all about how you feel.
  • FatJockSing
    FatJockSing Posts: 164 Member
    Options
    All the above - same message. Your burn is a slow constant process but the re-fuelling can be any time any way. What ever helps you stick to your goal! If It Fits Your Lifestyle (IIFYL) is pretty much the new acronym of the moment for this reason!

    Good luck!!
  • Mom_of_X
    Mom_of_X Posts: 85 Member
    Options
    I do six, but I rarely ever sit down for one. I'm constantly eating when I'm awake.

    It's personal preference... and a little discipline (to stay within your cal/macro goals).

    Cheers!
  • lavendy17
    lavendy17 Posts: 309 Member
    Options
    If you continuously snack you don't get that satisfying feeling that you get at the end of a good meal. To me that meant constantly looking for food, which is very distracting. I also feel like I'd rather take the 100-300 calories from a snack and add them to get a bigger meal because ultimately, snacks should help keep hunger at bay between meals, but they are not as filling. I sometimes have fruit 3 hours before dinner. I always eat a 4th meal before a workout.
  • Jim_Barteck
    Jim_Barteck Posts: 274 Member
    Options
    For general weight loss, it doesn't really matter when you eat.

    So where did this advice come from? From competitive bodybuilders. When you're trying to get absolutely shredded for a competition, a few extra ounces here and there can make the difference between win, place and show. When you wait longer between meals, your body stores those extra calories to use for energy between meals (because these people have pretty much completely exhausted their fat stores already). The longer between meals, the more calories that must be stored. So, they optimize their "shredding," by eating many smaller meals every couple of hours rather than waiting - as most human beings do - 4-6 hours between meals.

    So unless you're getting ready for next week's bodybuilding competition, whenever you eat will be just fine :)
  • lavendy17
    lavendy17 Posts: 309 Member
    Options
    It really depends on what will work for you. Some people successfully lose weight with a lot of smaller meals than eating the normal 3.

    All I know is, before we became constant grazers and only ate 3 balanced meals a day, we didn't have the obesity problem we have now.

    I am pretty sure the obesity is more a product of industrialized food that is made with no nutritional value and addictive substances like MSG and refined sugar.
  • BombshellPhoenix
    BombshellPhoenix Posts: 1,693 Member
    Options
    It really depends on what will work for you. Some people successfully lose weight with a lot of smaller meals than eating the normal 3.

    All I know is, before we became constant grazers and only ate 3 balanced meals a day, we didn't have the obesity problem we have now.

    I am pretty sure the obesity is more a product of industrialized food that is made with no nutritional value and addictive substances like MSG and refined sugar.

    I'm pretty sure it's just from overeating. Period. Not from any one thing.
  • Veil5577
    Veil5577 Posts: 868 Member
    Options
    It really depends on what will work for you. Some people successfully lose weight with a lot of smaller meals than eating the normal 3.

    All I know is, before we became constant grazers and only ate 3 balanced meals a day, we didn't have the obesity problem we have now.

    I am pretty sure the obesity is more a product of industrialized food that is made with no nutritional value and addictive substances like MSG and refined sugar.

    That too, added to the habit of grazing all day rather than eating three regular meals.
  • thavoice
    thavoice Posts: 1,326 Member
    Options
    It really depends on what will work for you. Some people successfully lose weight with a lot of smaller meals than eating the normal 3.

    All I know is, before we became constant grazers and only ate 3 balanced meals a day, we didn't have the obesity problem we have now.

    I am pretty sure the obesity is more a product of industrialized food that is made with no nutritional value and addictive substances like MSG and refined sugar.
    Nah. It is just eating too much.

    Portion sizes at restaurants and what we eat at home are just huge. Obesity is here because we eat too much, and move too little. People spend too much time sitting on their butts and too little time being active. Add that to the amount of food many eat and you have an epedemic on your hands
  • ddkphotos
    ddkphotos Posts: 304 Member
    Options
    I officially have 3 "meals" a day - but also snack in between - so my 1,400 calories are more or less broken down approximately to:

    Breakfast - 300
    snack - 150
    lunch - 350
    snack - 150
    dinner - 350
    snack after dinner - 100

    Plus whatever exercise - I eat those back too...
    I find it works for me - having bigger meals leaves me too stuffed and lethargic - but I don't like going 6 hours between eating... so eating every 2 - 3 hours... works for me...
  • FatJockSing
    FatJockSing Posts: 164 Member
    Options


    That too, added to the habit of grazing all day rather than eating three regular meals.

    Most people are disagreeing and saying the number is irrelevant if you control calories . . . eating 1600 cals in a single sitting vs eating cals betwen 6 sittings is still 1600 cals. its like asking what weighs more - a tonne of bricks or a tonne of feathers!! :grumble:
  • Veil5577
    Veil5577 Posts: 868 Member
    Options


    That too, added to the habit of grazing all day rather than eating three regular meals.

    Most people are disagreeing and saying the number is irrelevant if you control calories . . . eating 1600 cals in a single sitting vs eating cals betwen 6 sittings is still 1600 cals. its like asking what weighs more - a tonne of bricks or a tonne of feathers!! :grumble:

    I believe I said in my post that continuous small meals does work for some people and not for others.
  • acpgee
    acpgee Posts: 7,623 Member
    Options
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27422547

Categories