Set Meal Times vs. smaller, more frequent "snacking"?

I don't have set meal times. During the work week it's generally the same time every day (lunch around 1:30 - 3:00, dinner around 8:30 - 9:30). On the weekends there is no schedule. It just depends on what we're doing.

I do the best with 3 meals a day and a snack in the evening.

I usually have about 800 calories between breakfast and lunch (switches off which one is the heavier meal), 600 calories for dinner, then 200 for an evening snack (1600 calories total). This isn't something I necessarily planned (with the exception of mindfully saving calories for a snack), its just a pattern that came out over time.

I'm doing well with 3 meals and 1-2 small snacks a day usually.
I think eating more frequently would be harder for me to keep track of and wouldn't suit my lifestyle.

I eat 7 times a day Monday-Friday. Preworkout Quest bar, post-workout protein shake, breakfast, lunch, afternoon snack, dinner, dessert. I'm almost never hungry.

Weekends are different. I eat more calories on weekends, but fewer meals. As is my intention.

I don't do either of these things for weight loss purposes. The number of calories I eat takes care of that. Meal timing doesn't matter. This is just how I eat.

Mine is all over the place. I work 12 hour night shifts Friday-Sunday and go to school during the day on weekdays. My schedule is constantly flipping around so I eat at all times of the day. I find that smaller meals spread around whenever works for me. I just stay within my calories for that 24 hour period of time.

christinev297 wrote: »

IMO I think it's better for your body not to be constantly digesting food all day and night. So, for me large breaks between meals suits me

Larger meals simply mean longer digestion periods. So whether you eat several small meals, or a couple big ones, it still takes roughly the same time to digest all the food.

There really is no metabolic advantage to any kind of meal timing so it's one of those things you should base completely on how well you do with it. Many people do well with small frequent meals, others like 1-2 big meals (myself included), and eating 3 squares and a snack works great for people as too. I'd just experiment with all the options until you find out which allows you to meet your nutritional goals the easiest.

I think experimenting to see what works for you is a great idea.

I like eating 3 significant meals, with sometimes an afternoon snack if I work out such that I'm hungry for it or plan to eat really late, or both. (I tend to eat an early breakfast, a noon-time lunch, and a quite late dinner.) I don't care for snacking in general, and for me eating throughout the day based on hunger wouldn't work for lots of reasons--I wouldn't be hungry, I would find it burdensome to have appropriate food available, I prefer meals to snacks and would be forced to eat lots of pre-prepared foods I don't care for/don't really need, and I'd probably constantly be thinking of reasons to eat something and end up over-consuming calories. And then I'd be bummed to not be able to have a real dinner.

None of this applies to people in general; just me and my habits.

I enjoyed my food more than I did when I spread my calories out by snacking.

This is true for me.

I like having smaller meals and snacks because I had a problem with waiting too long between meals and getting grumpy or impatient before.

When I was calorie restricting I would usually have three 300-400 calories meals and 2-3 200 calories snacks a day. Just depended on what I planned for the day and how hungry I was by evening.

Personally, I find that eating very little during the day and then eating dinner and a snack works. But I'm glad you're open to experimenting, because I sometimes have to change up my meals depending on what that day brings.