Small, Frequent Meals aren't Necessary

Options
amuhlou
amuhlou Posts: 693 Member
in Food and Nutrition
I read an interesting post on the Nutrition Diva's blog today.

http://ow.ly/522w3

An article in the Journal of Nutrition found that the more frequently people eat, the more likely they are to be under-reporting the calories they're consuming. When "implausible" calorie counts (based on participants age, height, & weight) were thrown out, people were actually more likely to GAIN weight when eating smaller, more frequent meals. In essence, more frequent meals amounted to more opportunities to overeat.

The bottom line: As long as you're counting calories and not going over, you can eat calories in any allotment you please and still see results.
«1

Replies

  • proncess1962
    proncess1962 Posts: 15
    Options
    I was true to MFP all weekend and came in usually under my calorie count but gained 2 pounds because of what I ate (or didn't eat) and drank. It's not just about calories, it's about what you put in your mouth.
  • 4mybaby33
    4mybaby33 Posts: 13
    Options
    That was very interesting!! Thank you!
  • bluellies
    bluellies Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    Here's my thing--while I do agree that the more times one eats, the more opportunities there are for over eating, I personally suffer the next day if I eat too many of my calories in one meal. I get hungrier the next day, and find it harder to stop. It seems as if it undoes all of my careful eating--if it's OK this one time because I have the calories for it, it'll be ok tomorrow when I don't.

    Also, even if you're under calories for the day if you eat too many at once, and you body doesn't have time to digest them, they'll go straight to fat. That's reason enough for me to stick with only one 400-500 calorie meal a day.
  • amuhlou
    amuhlou Posts: 693 Member
    Options
    Fixed the link, apparently one of the words in the article url was thought to be a "bad" word and it was replacing it with asterisks.
  • jhoffman27
    jhoffman27 Posts: 55 Member
    Options
    I agree that if you eat more often and you don't watch your portion control you're more likely to gain weight, but if you eat every 2-3 hours and watch portion sizes it keeps your metabolism from slowing down in between meals. :smile:
  • shortcake05
    shortcake05 Posts: 31
    Options
    I find that I rarely overeat when I eat smaller, more frequent meals throughout the day. But I agree - As long as you're counting as accurate as possible, and staying within your limits, it shouldn't matter how you do it.
  • 4jenniferk
    4jenniferk Posts: 307 Member
    Options
    I know that the standard of eat several small meals a day is crucial to diabetics. It keeps the blood sugar levels constant. Weight watchers and several of the others actually follow the ADA's diet recommendations and it in turn helps those that overeat due to hunger extremes from over indulging. For me I do three meals and one snack it works for me and I always try to stay true to MFP reporting even when I'd prefer to hide the truth from days I go overboard.
  • shortcake05
    shortcake05 Posts: 31
    Options
    I was true to MFP all weekend and came in usually under my calorie count but gained 2 pounds because of what I ate (or didn't eat) and drank. It's not just about calories, it's about what you put in your mouth.

    I disagree. Last summer I ate a weird mix of healthy and junk food, yet I lost 10 lbs because I was working out a lot and eating 6-7 small meals throughout the day. French fries, white bread, sonic blasts, pasta, still lost weight. I was just smart about knowing how much I was burning that day.

    I'm a pretty big health nut so I don't like to eat junk food often. I just happen to be in a summer class with some people who were always wanting to go out. If I could live off fruit all day, I'd only eat that (I'm that weird). I don't think eating junk food is the way to lose weight and I don't encourage it. JUST saying, as long as you're being honest and burning enough, you can get by with eating just about anything. It just takes discipline.
  • Carri_M
    Carri_M Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    For myself, I like to have my 3 regular meals, but also plan on some small snack inbetween. Things like fruit or granola bar. I certainly would not have time to have several small "meals" every day, but I found that making sure I have a planned snack, I don't "cheat", and I keep my metabolism going. I will say that my favorite snack is fruit. Low cal fruits (melon, berries) are great and fill me up because of their higher water content. Good stuff!
  • amuhlou
    amuhlou Posts: 693 Member
    Options
    Here's my thing--while I do agree that the more times one eats, the more opportunities there are for over eating, I personally suffer the next day if I eat too many of my calories in one meal. I get hungrier the next day, and find it harder to stop. It seems as if it undoes all of my careful eating--if it's OK this one time because I have the calories for it, it'll be ok tomorrow when I don't.

    Also, even if you're under calories for the day if you eat too many at once, and you body doesn't have time to digest them, they'll go straight to fat. That's reason enough for me to stick with only one 400-500 calorie meal a day.

    I would agree that in practice it's probably a bad idea to eat too much in one meal - especially if it starts to undo your good eating habits by making you more hungry and likely to binge.I personally can't eat a ton in one sitting because I had my gallbladder removed and bad things can happen. And most times you don't feel full much longer with a high cal meal than you do with a lower cal one. I go with 3 meals and 3ish smaller snacks per day.

    Just interesting to see something totally in opposition to what was supposedly "conventional wisdom" regarding weight loss.
  • Barneystinson
    Barneystinson Posts: 1,357 Member
    Options
    I'm old school and I eat three times a day, sometimes twice if one meal is large (dine out). Believe it or not, there's nothing wrong with eating fewer, more calorie-dense meals. Let me list the benefits:

    1. Fewer meals to pack. I pack my breakfast and lunch. Easy. I throw two meals in Ziploc containers and walk out the door.

    2. Less focus on feeding times. Look - if I'm doing something productive, I don't want to constantly stop and have meal time. There's days where I'll only eat twice because I'm productive doing something else or I'm in a situation where I can't eat - meeting with a customer, etc. I'm not tethered to a constant snack schedule and I'm not hungry for snacks.

    3. Less stress about WHAT and WHEN to eat when traveling. I'm not stressed out by going out to eat because the majority of meals fall into my meal calorie allotment of 400-600 calories. And if they don't, I eat something lighter at the next meal. No stress.

    4. My meals leave me satisfied and not over-full. I am content until my next meal. No temptation to graze or binge on crap sitting around the office or my house.

    5. I eat foods that extend satiety. If you lead a diet that's more rich in protein or fat, a lower volume of food (higher caloric density) is filling and may leave you content much longer.

    Eat at whatever interval works for YOU. Me, the small snacks and 5-6 meal times was a royal pain in my butt. I also had a hard time choosing meals while dining out because I had eaten the majority of my calories during my "meal times" throughout the day and had few calories left over for dinner.
  • bigredhearts
    bigredhearts Posts: 428
    Options
    I was true to MFP all weekend and came in usually under my calorie count but gained 2 pounds because of what I ate (or didn't eat) and drank. It's not just about calories, it's about what you put in your mouth.

    I disagree. Last summer I ate a weird mix of healthy and junk food, yet I lost 10 lbs because I was working out a lot and eating 6-7 small meals throughout the day. French fries, white bread, sonic blasts, pasta, still lost weight. I was just smart about knowing how much I was burning that day.

    I'm a pretty big health nut so I don't like to eat junk food often. I just happen to be in a summer class with some people who were always wanting to go out. If I could live off fruit all day, I'd only eat that (I'm that weird). I don't think eating junk food is the way to lose weight and I don't encourage it. JUST saying, as long as you're being honest and burning enough, you can get by with eating just about anything. It just takes discipline.

    ive known people to lose weight eating junk food alone with no exercise, its not just about losing the weight, its losing the weight while being as healthy as possible while doing so. and its known to keep the metabolism going to eat small meals throughout the day but personally i wouldnt even call them all meals, id say more like 3 small meals and 3 snacks... i also agree that for most people if they do this they will underestimate their cal intake however, if you prepare your meals, measure them, and have the control you need to say no, you will be just fine. ive been eating "small meals" for two months and have lost 15lbs! and never once gone up on my weight, due to any circumstances such as sodium or TOM. you must have strong will power and motivation to keep yourself going and if the "small meals" plan works better for you, i say go for it!
  • Carri_M
    Carri_M Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    Very true. Calories in, calories burned. I know that often when I stay under my calorie goal I have a tendency to lose less than when I stay at my calorie goal. I don't think it takes much to go into "starvation mode". Important to make good food choices, but 100 calories is 100 calories no matter what the source.
  • hbrekkaas
    hbrekkaas Posts: 268 Member
    Options
    I eat 6 times a day. Breakfast, snack, lunch, snack, dinner, snack. I eat with my kids and it works for me. I also have major issues keeping my blood pressure up and eating every few hours helps keep it under control.
  • mom111997
    mom111997 Posts: 101 Member
    Options
    It's kinda like those people who like to say "muscle weighs more than fat"... no it doesn't... a pound is a pound no matter what you're weighing. It's the same with the calorie count... 100 calories of a food that's high in sugar or carbs is the same is 100 calories from a steak. It's how your body metabolizes the food that matters. So, although you're trying to stay inside your calorie range, you're also trying to take care of your body at the same time.
  • pearlof69
    pearlof69 Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    It's kinda like those people who like to say "muscle weighs more than fat"... no it doesn't... a pound is a pound no matter what you're weighing. It's the same with the calorie count... 100 calories of a food that's high in sugar or carbs is the same is 100 calories from a steak. It's how your body metabolizes the food that matters. So, although you're trying to stay inside your calorie range, you're also trying to take care of your body at the same time.

    Its called the thermic effect of food - there is an energy cost associated with the breakdown and digestion of food. Just as exercise burns calories so too does eating. You burn energy digesting food. This is called the thermic effect of food or dietary thermogenesis. Lean proteins are highly thermic, around 30% compared to most carbs and fats which are around 3-4% thermic.

    In 100 cals of chicken breast you use 30 calories simply in the breakdown and digestion. This causes a greater calorie deficit, but more importantly forces your digestive system to work.
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Options
    But muscle DOES weigh more than fat. 3 times more for it's volume. That's like saying lead doesn't weigh more than feathers because a pound of each weighs the same, but which do you think is smaller? Anyone sane is talking about weight per unit volume. To discuss relative weight any other way is nonsensical.




    ANYWAY, I eat 4 meals a day, and log absolutely everything to the tiniest degree. I am constantly surprised by how few items people have logged in their food diaries, mine is always a mile long even if I am way under quota, as each meal contains at least 8 ingredients.
  • RunHardBeStrong
    RunHardBeStrong Posts: 33,069 Member
    Options
    I'm old school and I eat three times a day, sometimes twice if one meal is large (dine out). Believe it or not, there's nothing wrong with eating fewer, more calorie-dense meals. Let me list the benefits:

    1. Fewer meals to pack. I pack my breakfast and lunch. Easy. I throw two meals in Ziploc containers and walk out the door.

    2. Less focus on feeding times. Look - if I'm doing something productive, I don't want to constantly stop and have meal time. There's days where I'll only eat twice because I'm productive doing something else or I'm in a situation where I can't eat - meeting with a customer, etc. I'm not tethered to a constant snack schedule and I'm not hungry for snacks.

    3. Less stress about WHAT and WHEN to eat when traveling. I'm not stressed out by going out to eat because the majority of meals fall into my meal calorie allotment of 400-600 calories. And if they don't, I eat something lighter at the next meal. No stress.

    4. My meals leave me satisfied and not over-full. I am content until my next meal. No temptation to graze or binge on crap sitting around the office or my house.

    5. I eat foods that extend satiety. If you lead a diet that's more rich in protein or fat, a lower volume of food (higher caloric density) is filling and may leave you content much longer.

    Eat at whatever interval works for YOU. Me, the small snacks and 5-6 meal times was a royal pain in my butt. I also had a hard time choosing meals while dining out because I had eaten the majority of my calories during my "meal times" throughout the day and had few calories left over for dinner.

    I totally agree! You have to do what works for YOU! I've tried both ways and I lose more consistently with 3 meals and a snack/protein shake. When I did the 5/6 meals a day I felt like all I thought about is food..which for me is a BAD thing. LOL I got to the point where I hated food!! I know they say it keeps your metabolism going but is an hour or two really make that much difference? Plus weight lifting and higher intensity workouts will keep the metabolism boosted as well....IMO you can overcomplicate this whole process and become overwhelmed. I have done it and when I take myself back to the basics I have much better results!
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Here's my thing--while I do agree that the more times one eats, the more opportunities there are for over eating, I personally suffer the next day if I eat too many of my calories in one meal. I get hungrier the next day, and find it harder to stop. It seems as if it undoes all of my careful eating--if it's OK this one time because I have the calories for it, it'll be ok tomorrow when I don't.

    Also, even if you're under calories for the day if you eat too many at once, and you body doesn't have time to digest them, they'll go straight to fat. That's reason enough for me to stick with only one 400-500 calorie meal a day.

    If your body doesn't digest something it goes straight in the toilet, not to fat.
  • RunHardBeStrong
    RunHardBeStrong Posts: 33,069 Member
    Options
    But muscle DOES weigh more than fat. 3 times more for it's volume. That's like saying lead doesn't weigh more than feathers because a pound of each weighs the same, but which do you think is smaller? Anyone sane is talking about weight per unit volume. To discuss relative weight any other way is nonsensical.




    ANYWAY, I eat 4 meals a day, and log absolutely everything to the tiniest degree. I am constantly surprised by how few items people have logged in their food diaries, mine is always a mile long even if I am way under quota, as each meal contains at least 8 ingredients.

    LOL we must have the same diary...I look at mine compared to others and think wow I eat ALOT but it's 95% all whole, healthy food and more days than not I'm under calorie goal if I go over it's never more than 100 cal.

Categories