2-3 very large meals vs 3-6 small ones
mirrinias
Posts: 80 Member
It seems that conventional weight loss wisdom says it is easier to lose weight on and better for you to eat several small meals throughout the day than to eat just a few large ones. The reasoning behind this is that your blood sugar doesn't rise and drop as drastically throughout the day, leaving you feeling tired and hungry throughout the day.
So far, it seems that I am more inclined to eat a smallish breakfast, and very large lunches and dinners with no snacking in between. If I eat smaller meals, I don't feel as satisfied and want to eat right away again, and reaching for stuff to graze on like chips, popcorn, chocolate covered raisins, etc. I think this comes from the fact that I am used to feeling over-full and that I don't feel "full" unless I overdo it. But, on the other hand, being this full makes it virtually impossible for me to have food on my mind for several hours, especially if I'm busy. I will even turn down my favorites like sweets and chocolates, and samples at the grocery store, etc. The cons are that being that full makes me sleepy and doesn't feel very good for a couple hours, and that sometimes, I am ravenously hungry and irritable before the next meal.
So what do you think? Should I be trying to eat smaller meals and just get used to it? Is it safe and acceptable to eat fewer and sometimes excessively large meals? Does one lead to a greater long-term success than the other?
So far, it seems that I am more inclined to eat a smallish breakfast, and very large lunches and dinners with no snacking in between. If I eat smaller meals, I don't feel as satisfied and want to eat right away again, and reaching for stuff to graze on like chips, popcorn, chocolate covered raisins, etc. I think this comes from the fact that I am used to feeling over-full and that I don't feel "full" unless I overdo it. But, on the other hand, being this full makes it virtually impossible for me to have food on my mind for several hours, especially if I'm busy. I will even turn down my favorites like sweets and chocolates, and samples at the grocery store, etc. The cons are that being that full makes me sleepy and doesn't feel very good for a couple hours, and that sometimes, I am ravenously hungry and irritable before the next meal.
So what do you think? Should I be trying to eat smaller meals and just get used to it? Is it safe and acceptable to eat fewer and sometimes excessively large meals? Does one lead to a greater long-term success than the other?
0
Replies
-
It does not matter. Calorie goals are what matter. Do what keeps you the most satiated and with enough energy to exercise.0
-
Well apparently 2 meals a day is good for diabetes, which flies in the face of the blood sugar argument:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27422547
Personally I am a three meal a day girl, unless I get up late in which case two meals is fine. Small breakfast, medium lunch, large as possible dinner.0 -
I prefer 3 squares. It's better for me, since it allows me to listen to my actual hunger cues and allows me to have big, satisfying meals. But really, it's whatever floats your boat.0
-
It does not matter. Calorie goals are what matter. Do what keeps you the most satiated and with enough energy to exercise.
^I'm with this guy. Some people do really well on 6 small meals a day and others feel like chewing their own arm off if they try it. The best diet strategy is the one that works for you.
0 -
I prefer eating little things spaced throughout the day with one large meal in the evening. Ultimately it doesn't matter, though. Whatever keeps you in your goal range is the right thing for you.0
-
I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.0 -
Well apparently 2 meals a day is good for diabetes, which flies in the face of the blood sugar argument:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27422547
Personally I am a three meal a day girl, unless I get up late in which case two meals is fine. Small breakfast, medium lunch, large as possible dinner.
That is a very interesting study! I would like it if they had used a larger sample size, but I think it still has value. I am at a very high risk for diabetes considering family history, my weight, and probably PCOS. Besides appearance, my #2 motivation is to not end up with diabetes!It does not matter. Calorie goals are what matter. Do what keeps you the most satiated and with enough energy to exercise.
Thank you!
0 -
I find I do best on a small breakfast, large lunch, and medium dinner0
-
melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?0 -
The best eating schedule is the one that keeps you compliant with your plan. Currently, I eat one small meal and one large meal. When I was less active and heavier, I was eating many small meals, because I was insulin resistant and HANGRY every 3-4 hours if I didn't snack. Once the insulin resistance was controlled, I naturally switched to the eating schedule I'm on now.0
-
It doesn't matter as long as you are in your calories.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.0 -
melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
See your comment in bold above, if you are barely losing not tracking is probably your biggest issue, not the amount of times you eat.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
You said you are barely losing eating a 'small' meal and a 'large' meal. Since you aren't tracking, I'd guess you are eating larger meals than you think you are, calorie-wise.
0 -
I eat two meals a day, it works for me. Their size varies but they tend to be fairly balanced.0
-
I started out at 3 meals and 2 snacks per day. Now I usually fall into 3 meals and 1 snack, but I'm starting to eat heartier meals and I think I will be shifting to just 3 meals a day at some point. We'll see. I like my afternoon snacks.0
-
Well apparently 2 meals a day is good for diabetes, which flies in the face of the blood sugar argument:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27422547
Personally I am a three meal a day girl, unless I get up late in which case two meals is fine. Small breakfast, medium lunch, large as possible dinner.
Interesting, but I hate news articles that don't even discuss the basics of where the actual work was published. Any article in this form needs to be considered as an interesting new idea, but certainly is not actual evidence of anything. If we could see a peer-reviewed article we could assess the methodology, and then it would need to be considered within the context of the literature more broadly.0 -
I usually eat two meals a day too -- breakfast or lunch depending on when I'm hungry and then dinner. Occasionally I'll have a snack or small meal but that's pretty rare. It's a perfectly healthy way of eating.0
-
girlviernes wrote: »Well apparently 2 meals a day is good for diabetes, which flies in the face of the blood sugar argument:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27422547
Personally I am a three meal a day girl, unless I get up late in which case two meals is fine. Small breakfast, medium lunch, large as possible dinner.
Interesting, but I hate news articles that don't even discuss the basics of where the actual work was published. Any article in this form needs to be considered as an interesting new idea, but certainly is not actual evidence of anything. If we could see a peer-reviewed article we could assess the methodology, and then it would need to be considered within the context of the literature more broadly.
Here's the study the article is referencing: Eating two larger meals a day (breakfast and lunch) is more effective than six smaller meals in a reduced-energy regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised crossover study
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Well apparently 2 meals a day is good for diabetes, which flies in the face of the blood sugar argument:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27422547
Personally I am a three meal a day girl, unless I get up late in which case two meals is fine. Small breakfast, medium lunch, large as possible dinner.
Interesting, but I hate news articles that don't even discuss the basics of where the actual work was published. Any article in this form needs to be considered as an interesting new idea, but certainly is not actual evidence of anything. If we could see a peer-reviewed article we could assess the methodology, and then it would need to be considered within the context of the literature more broadly.
Here's the study the article is referencing: Eating two larger meals a day (breakfast and lunch) is more effective than six smaller meals in a reduced-energy regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised crossover study
You rock!0 -
2 meals a day works for me. It doesn't have any influence over my weightloss, but I love eating 2 big satisfying meals.
I have about 2/5ths of my calories at 7am and the other 3/5ths at midday.0 -
When I am home all day I do better by eating several small meals / snacks because I like to "munch" things simply out of habit.
When I am out working I can go all day without eating a darn thing because I am focused on driving, getting into the properties, etc. I keep water and a granola bar or protein bar in the car. Sometimes I am able to plan ahead and pack a lunch...but I rarely eat that much.
Then when I get home I'm often too tired to even care about supper, and I eat a little, and fall asleep. LOL
0 -
I find it harder to stay within my calories with more snack meals...breakfast, lunch and dinner with some sort of treat in the evening seems to be working for me.
0 -
Sorry I still don't follow. Tracking wouldn't mean I can eat more calories and still lose.melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
See your comment in bold above, if you are barely losing not tracking is probably your biggest issue, not the amount of times you eat.
0 -
Between my work and school schedule, I can't eat more often even if I wanted to. I've done fine eating three meals when I can.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sorry I still don't follow. Tracking wouldn't mean I can eat more calories and still lose.melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
See your comment in bold above, if you are barely losing not tracking is probably your biggest issue, not the amount of times you eat.
Tracking would mean you would find out that you are eating more than you think. If you are barely losing, you are eating close to maintenance. Either that, or you have a really low metabolism from chronic undereating, like melanieliving said. Don't know why you're not following this.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions