Eating six 'mini' meals instead of three regular meals

I'm surprised so many people are against the small meals thing. It has worked beautifully for me, and I was put on the plan by a professional. At first I thought a 250 calorie meal sounded absolutely ludicrous, but I adjusted to it pretty easily, and there are way more filling options out there than you realize. I don't agree that bombing your system with one or two huge calorie intakes for the day is the best route, personally. I like to think of it just like getting the best fuel mileage out of your car- if you give it a steady dose of energy (gas) without hitting a bunch of stops, you get the best out of it. It's the same with your body. Steady doses of energy make it function most efficiently. I eat 3 200-300 calorie meals per day and add in snacks as I can to meet my daily goals, and I lost 37 pounds in about 4 months sticking to this.

I don think anyone is "against" it. Most are saying do what works for you. I also like the 6 meals a day but realize that it doesn't work well for everyone.

The gas analogy is off. How often you fill it doesn't affect your gas mileage. How you drive it does. You don't get better gas mileage out of your car if you put a small amount of gas several times a day over filling the tank.

I think she was talking acceleration, not filling the tank.

However, I still think the analogy is flawed. Our body has mechanisms in place to even out the spikes and dips that happen in our consumption. That's why we store fat to begin with -- to maintain that level of energy input required for energy output.

Regarding what I've bolded, above -- there really is nothing wrong with doing that. In fact, that's what the human body is actually used to, and we have a number of mechanisms in place for handling it. Not only was such feast/famine cycle common while we were still hunter-gatherers (which actually had more extreme feast/famine cycles sometimes), but also once we started farming -- traditionally, farmers would have a big breakfast, a big dinner, and maybe a light lunch...if there was that much food to be had (the end of winter meant food was quite scarce, so rationing was not unheard of), and that doesn't even get into famine years.

Where we started having problems with this setup, I think, was more recently, when the content of our diets shifted from a more balanced (ie - something like 40c/30p/30f) or fat-heavy (ie - 40% or even higher percentages of fat, depending on local staples) to one that is decidedly carb heavy (ie - the USDA recommendation of 50% carbs or more). The reliance on carbohydrates as a primary fuel source brings with it spikes and drops in blood sugar and insulin (yes, this happens in healthy people, too). The more you eat at once, the more drastic the (potential) spike and the more insulin your body has to put out to modulate that glucose spike. The six meal a day thing is a measure to modulate that spike, as well, by eating less at one sitting. It also serves to schedule an eating time right about the time insulin and glucose are both at their lowest after eating, which is commonly associated with "getting hungry" due to the drop in glucose and insulin in the blood stream (the shift doesn't have to be outside the bounds of normal -- the relative difference is enough to trigger the brain's hunger signals).

No one's against doing it that way. The body is, of course, remarkably adaptable. People here are against the idea that it's the "only" or the "best" way of eating, because it really doesn't matter. The body is perfectly capable of going several hours, and even a couple of days, without food with no health ramifications (there are actually studies that suggest that certain forms of intermittent fasting are beneficial). What matters at the end of the day is what is sustainable for the individual.

If you want actual nutrition advice, seek a registered dietitian, not a gym nutritionist.

^^^ This.

Some people find grazing helps with compliance but otherwise it's calories in, calories out.

I think she was talking acceleration, not filling the tank.

However, I still think the analogy is flawed. Our body has mechanisms in place to even out the spikes and dips that happen in our consumption. That's why we store fat to begin with -- to maintain that level of energy input required for energy output.

Regarding what I've bolded, above -- there really is nothing wrong with doing that. In fact, that's what the human body is actually used to, and we have a number of mechanisms in place for handling it. Not only was such feast/famine cycle common while we were still hunter-gatherers (which actually had more extreme feast/famine cycles sometimes), but also once we started farming -- traditionally, farmers would have a big breakfast, a big dinner, and maybe a light lunch...if there was that much food to be had (the end of winter meant food was quite scarce, so rationing was not unheard of), and that doesn't even get into famine years.

Where we started having problems with this setup, I think, was more recently, when the content of our diets shifted from a more balanced (ie - something like 40c/30p/30f) or fat-heavy (ie - 40% or even higher percentages of fat, depending on local staples) to one that is decidedly carb heavy (ie - the USDA recommendation of 50% carbs or more). The reliance on carbohydrates as a primary fuel source brings with it spikes and drops in blood sugar and insulin (yes, this happens in healthy people, too). The more you eat at once, the more drastic the (potential) spike and the more insulin your body has to put out to modulate that glucose spike. The six meal a day thing is a measure to modulate that spike, as well, by eating less at one sitting. It also serves to schedule an eating time right about the time insulin and glucose are both at their lowest after eating, which is commonly associated with "getting hungry" due to the drop in glucose and insulin in the blood stream (the shift doesn't have to be outside the bounds of normal -- the relative difference is enough to trigger the brain's hunger signals).

No one's against doing it that way. The body is, of course, remarkably adaptable. People here are against the idea that it's the "only" or the "best" way of eating, because it really doesn't matter. The body is perfectly capable of going several hours, and even a couple of days, without food with no health ramifications (there are actually studies that suggest that certain forms of intermittent fasting are beneficial). What matters at the end of the day is what is sustainable for the individual.

I feel like people are over thinking it. My "5-6 meals" really look like a regular 3 meals and a snack or two.


If you're eating too little, maybe you should keep your 3 meals the same and add 2-3 snacks during the day. What could be bad about that??


My snacks (when I'm being healthy...) are typically a piece of fruit, some veggies with hummus, a yogurt, or some nuts and dried fruit. I just need a little extra something mid-morning and mid-afternoon to get through the day.