How many times a day should I eat??

formytwins
formytwins Posts: 106
edited September 23 in Food and Nutrition
Any ideas on how many times a day I should eat? I was told 5 to 6 but not really liking that.
«1

Replies

  • ImaHomer
    ImaHomer Posts: 22
    I eat 7 times a day.
  • CARNAT22
    CARNAT22 Posts: 764 Member
    Hey,

    It depends on what works for you I would imagine.

    I like to graze (if I graze then it keeps the hunger at bay) but some people are better off sticking to their set meal times.

    As long as you have your 3 main meals a day and stick to your calorie allowence you should be fine.

    CN
  • HolsDoinIt
    HolsDoinIt Posts: 327 Member
    thats what the dietician told me also. was 5-6 but that they didnt have to be full meals. he told me to consider snacks as food w/ calories between 150-300
  • strandedeyes
    strandedeyes Posts: 392 Member
    Definitely have your three main meals (no skipping those) and small snacks in between. This way you don't go into hunger binges through out one meal. I actually never used to eat more than 2 to 3 until recently where I found myself sticking to the three main meals and then just two small snacks...so that left me with eating 5 times a day.
  • poisongirl6485
    poisongirl6485 Posts: 1,487 Member
    I know most people will say 5-6 small meals, but I don't really do that. I do the three main meals with the rare snack. I'm not hungry soon enough after I eat breakfast or lunch to justify having a snack 2-3 hours after i eat. I just get most of my daily calories from the main meals and that seems to have been working.
  • ultimategar
    ultimategar Posts: 96 Member
    Definitely have your three main meals (no skipping those) and small snacks in between. This way you don't go into hunger binges through out one meal. I actually never used to eat more than 2 to 3 until recently where I found myself sticking to the three main meals and then just two small snacks...so that left me with eating 5 times a day.

    I think this is the key, never getting really hungry so you stay in control of what you eat.
  • kitchentales
    kitchentales Posts: 73
    Eat when you're hungry. 5-6 times per day is what's considered healthy for your metabolism - that keeps it running instead of shutting down. I think of it like a car - the car stays warm if you leave it on every time you pop in somewhere while you're running your errands, and it takes more energy to keep starting it up after each errand. (Wouldn't it be nice to leave the car running while you run in for your coffee or to the bank? Ha ha, if only.)

    I think the important thing here though is that you're not under your goals for the day, and that you eat when you want to. If you're not hungry, don't eat. Gradually you may find that if you reduce portion sizes of your 3 square meals, you may need a few snacks during the day to keep you full, which is where I've gotten to. I have breakfast, morning snack, lunch, afternoon snack, dinner, sometimes dessert or after-dinner snack.
  • FaeFae
    FaeFae Posts: 243 Member
    I usually do breakfast, healthy snack (fruit), lunch, snack, dinner, snack....if i dont eat the snacks in between im too hungry. I find the more times i eat in a day the quicker i get hungry which is a good sign because it means your metabolism is working. I dont know word for word the exact reasoning but they say 5 or 6 small meals because of your metabolism.
  • Altiv
    Altiv Posts: 174 Member
    I eat 7 - 8 times a day, four of them are full meals, and the others are just snacks that don't have more than 150 cals each one. I was told to eat ideally every three hours so I could keep my metabolism active which in the end would help me to lose weight more efficiently, also you're not hungry though the day so it's less likely you'll eat a lot at one time.
  • formytwins
    formytwins Posts: 106
    okay all sound good but.......need help with the small snacks???? Any ideas on small snacks??? Low Cal.....
  • ImaHomer
    ImaHomer Posts: 22
    Turkey, Tomato, Spinich on whole wheat. 300cals. cut it in half for a snack and you have 2 :)
  • FaeFae
    FaeFae Posts: 243 Member
    small snacks i'll do anything from a boiled egg, fruit, portioned pretzels or smart pop, popcorn, yogurt, almonds, oatmeal bar etc, hummus....etc.
  • formytwins
    formytwins Posts: 106
    I thought about buying the packs in the snack isle that are the 100 calorie snacks???
  • ImaHomer
    ImaHomer Posts: 22
    I don't like them because they dont fill you up like 2 cups ob Broccoli would. I know you dont want to eat Broccoli everyday, im just saying that generally these end up as extra calories because people tend to eat again too quickly. I make all my meals/snacks at home and take them to work. my car always has a case of water.
  • kitchentales
    kitchentales Posts: 73
    okay all sound good but.......need help with the small snacks???? Any ideas on small snacks??? Low Cal.....

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/163396-will-you-help-me-put-together-a-healthy-menu
    I started a thread asking about just that! There are loads of great ideas in there, browse through! I'm now doing the Kashi Mountain Medley granola for my yogurt and fruit, and I have an apple in the afternoon for my snack. I'm not 100% on board with the new meal plan yet (stupid snow interrupting my grocery shopping trip), but feel free to browse my food diary for other ideas. :-)
  • VeganJamiOnAMission
    VeganJamiOnAMission Posts: 65 Member
    I am just NOT a snacker. I think you have to do what works for you. I eat my 3 meals a day and I don't really get hungry in between. I like to try to be done eating for the day by 7 o'clock or so. I have heard that eating too close to bed time can cause some weight gain.
  • kitchentales
    kitchentales Posts: 73
    I am just NOT a snacker. I think you have to do what works for you. I eat my 3 meals a day and I don't really get hungry in between. I like to try to be done eating for the day by 7 o'clock or so. I have heard that eating too close to bed time can cause some weight gain.

    And I find I personally don't sleep well at all if I eat within an hour of going to sleep.
  • Slammedtoys
    Slammedtoys Posts: 18
    I eat once first thing in the morning before the gym
    a protein shake right after the gym
    small snack every two hours in between my 2 larger meals
    once with in 30 minutes of going to bed
  • ropedancer
    ropedancer Posts: 115
    I also do the three main meals with a couple of snacks in the afternoon/evening.

    As for snacks, I usually stick with fruit (various apples, bananas, strawberries, and grapes) and fiber bars (not the fiber one bars, but generic ones from my local grocery store. Tastes just as good to me!).
  • strandedeyes
    strandedeyes Posts: 392 Member
    I thought about buying the packs in the snack isle that are the 100 calorie snacks???

    Becareful of those 100 calorie snacks. Although it is great to have what you want in 100 calories, most are still only processed foods or contain a lot of sugar or sodium. Keep those snack packs for days where you have nothing else to snack on. I would look into more veggies, popcorn, some fruits (because of the sugar intake there). Less processed foods the better.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Our bodies are not like cars. Meal frequency has no real effect on metabolism. There is no research that supports an enhanced physical effect from greater meal frequency. Almost all of the benefit is psychological--which is fine. As long as one is not overeating, and they believe that more frequent meals works for them, then go for it. But someone who is not comfortable with that plan should not force themselves into it because of some mistaken idea that there is a physical benefit.

    Bellisle F et. al. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. (1997) 77 (Suppl 1):S57-70
  • SMarie10
    SMarie10 Posts: 956 Member
    Our bodies are not like cars. Meal frequency has no real effect on metabolism. There is no research that supports an enhanced physical effect from greater meal frequency. Almost all of the benefit is psychological--which is fine. As long as one is not overeating, and they believe that more frequent meals works for them, then go for it. But someone who is not comfortable with that plan should not force themselves into it because of some mistaken idea that there is a physical benefit.

    Bellisle F et. al. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. (1997) 77 (Suppl 1):S57-70
    Wow, that interesting. I've been reading all along that it does affect metabolism, and would slow down without snacks. Logically, as long as your keeping to your daily calories, it should not matter when they are consumed.
  • SharonMarquiss
    SharonMarquiss Posts: 9
    I think that is the best comment in here. All of the comments are from caring people, but I have read about this extensively, and it is absolutely true that you don't need to snack all day if you don't want to. 3 meals is fine. It all comes down to eating healthily, and exercising regularly. We all know what we should and shouldn't eat etc. Don't get too caught up in the details, you could become obsessed and then it's all you think and talk about. Just relax, eat when you feel like it, and be sensible. That's all there is to it.
  • _Bro
    _Bro Posts: 437 Member
    Our bodies are not like cars. Meal frequency has no real effect on metabolism. There is no research that supports an enhanced physical effect from greater meal frequency. Almost all of the benefit is psychological--which is fine. As long as one is not overeating, and they believe that more frequent meals works for them, then go for it. But someone who is not comfortable with that plan should not force themselves into it because of some mistaken idea that there is a physical benefit.

    Bellisle F et. al. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. (1997) 77 (Suppl 1):S57-70

    Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sport Exercise (6:5, pgs 265-272,1996) 2 vs six meals compared. Both groups lost the same amount of weight. HOWEVER, the 2 meal group mostly lost lean body mass while the six per day did not.

    The body is not like a car as it has multiple sources of fuel. Protein can not be stored and amino acids only remain in your blood stream for 3 hours (Whey, not Casein).

    I eat frequently to preserve muscle mass.
  • sbwood888
    sbwood888 Posts: 953 Member
    5 to 6 is what I have been told is best to keep metabolsim up and stave off hunger pangs.
  • get_it_gone2012
    get_it_gone2012 Posts: 214
    I eat when I feel legitimately hungry :)

    1705046.png
    Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Nutrition Facts For Foods
  • mrscjwilson
    mrscjwilson Posts: 252
    I eat about 7 small snacks a day! between 100-300 calories each appox. every 2 hours or so, works for me since I usually graze all day if I dont do this plan!
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Our bodies are not like cars. Meal frequency has no real effect on metabolism. There is no research that supports an enhanced physical effect from greater meal frequency. Almost all of the benefit is psychological--which is fine. As long as one is not overeating, and they believe that more frequent meals works for them, then go for it. But someone who is not comfortable with that plan should not force themselves into it because of some mistaken idea that there is a physical benefit.

    Bellisle F et. al. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. (1997) 77 (Suppl 1):S57-70

    Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sport Exercise (6:5, pgs 265-272,1996) 2 vs six meals compared. Both groups lost the same amount of weight. HOWEVER, the 2 meal group mostly lost lean body mass while the six per day did not.

    The body is not like a car as it has multiple sources of fuel. Protein can not be stored and amino acids only remain in your blood stream for 3 hours (Whey, not Casein).

    I eat frequently to preserve muscle mass.

    This study looked at 12 boxers eating a 1200 cal/day diet for two weeks. They also made a distinction between 2 meals a day and 6 (not 3 meals a day) They did not report any statistics in the abstract and I could not get access to the actual study. However, just looking at the small and specialized subject group and the parameters of the investigation, I feel comfortable in saying that this study has almost zero relevance or applicability to the general public.

    This is a common problem in health and fitness. As I said, this is an obscure study done on a specialized subject group under highly restrictive circumstances. Yet I just following up on the post, I have seen it cited on at least a dozen internet sites as "proof" of the "superiority" of eating 6 meals/day.
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member
    This is a common problem in health and fitness. As I said, this is an obscure study done on a specialized subject group under highly restrictive circumstances. Yet I just following up on the post, I have seen it cited on at least a dozen internet sites as "proof" of the "superiority" of eating 6 meals/day.

    You are very much right on that score. I think that the whole "you must" or even "you should" eat 6 times a day dogma needs to be put into context.

    One study: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198910053211403

    shows that a "nibbling" diet does have an "advantage" possibly due to changes in insulin secretion.

    However, another more comprehensive review in my opinion:

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=879792

    concludes: "Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation."

    Which is supported by the following:

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1850460&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0007114507877646

    which states: "Eating three meals compared with two meals had no effects on 24 h energy expenditure, diet-induced thermogenesis, activity-induced energy expenditure and sleeping metabolic rate. Eating three meals compared with two meals increased 24 h fat oxidation, but decreased the amount of fat oxidised from the breakfast."

    So what does this all mean in plain English? Overall it is about calories in v calories out irrespective of meal frequency, although more frequent meals seems to reduce the possibility of over eating. Structure your eating plan as you feel comfortable and fits in with your day to day life.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    This is a common problem in health and fitness. As I said, this is an obscure study done on a specialized subject group under highly restrictive circumstances. Yet I just following up on the post, I have seen it cited on at least a dozen internet sites as "proof" of the "superiority" of eating 6 meals/day.

    You are very much right on that score. I think that the whole "you must" or even "you should" eat 6 times a day dogma needs to be put into context.

    One study: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198910053211403

    shows that a "nibbling" diet does have an "advantage" possibly due to changes in insulin secretion.

    However, another more comprehensive review in my opinion:

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=879792

    concludes: "Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation."

    Which is supported by the following:

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1850460&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0007114507877646

    which states: "Eating three meals compared with two meals had no effects on 24 h energy expenditure, diet-induced thermogenesis, activity-induced energy expenditure and sleeping metabolic rate. Eating three meals compared with two meals increased 24 h fat oxidation, but decreased the amount of fat oxidised from the breakfast."

    So what does this all mean in plain English? Overall it is about calories in v calories out irrespective of meal frequency, although more frequent meals seems to reduce the possibility of over eating. Structure your eating plan as you feel comfortable and fits in with your day to day life.

    And your last paragraph is really the most important point. I don't have any problem with the idea of increased meal frequency. There are times when I find it preferable for my own lifestyle.

    Where I often have problems with this and other cliched exhortations is the dogmatic and often exclusionary positions taken on what are--at best--trivial and peripheral issues involving weight loss.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories