3 meals vs 6 meals a day, what's your experience/opinion?
Replies
-
A couple of things. Meal timing does not matter. You will find sources that say it does, but I can guarantee those sources are trying to make money off you believing that. Or they heard it from someone trying to make money. I sometimes eat a single meal with all my daily calories. Sometimes I eat about 12 mini-meals because I spend the whole day grazing. I eat what I want when I want (just not necessarily AS MUCH as I want
).
Carb timing does not matter, unless you have a medical condition. I have type 1 diabetes, and it only moderately matters for me, but not for the reasons your PT claimed. Your body can use the energy from carbs even if you eat them right before you go to sleep. That is just a fact. I eat in bed watching Netflix almost every night, and all my snacks are high-carb. It has not affected my weight loss or my health in any way whatsoever.
Your PT is not a registered dietician who was trained on nutrition, so you should ignore the advice she's giving you, since it is incorrect. Either see a registered dietician, or stick around MFP to read what some of the regulars with higher post counts are saying.
And finally, I would agree with previous posters that 1300 calories is too low for someone of your size. HOWEVER. That assumes you are correctly weighing your food with a digital scale and logging everything. If you aren't, then you are probably eating more than 1300 calories already and increasing what you eat could be counterproductive to your goals. If you are weighing your foods and logging correctly, then yes, 1300 is too low. However, you should know if it's too low by how fast you're losing. Your body doesn't care if you're logging correctly or not, it will lose the weight based on the calories going in vs the calories you burn. If you are losing the weight rapidly, add calories and slow down. If the weight is coming off at a slow/steady pace, then you are most likely already eating more than 1300. In that case, you would want to tighten up your logging when you get closer to goal, but it may not matter so much right now.
There's a lot of misinformation out there about dieting, and it can be frustrating when you start to realize how much "common knowledge" about nutrition/dieting is simply false. Like I said, stick around and you can learn a lot on these forums.
Incorrect based on all scientific evidence and studies found to date. Like mentioned, it does not matter much; especially for OP's current situation.
It does matter, just very little. Eric Helms in his nutritional series points out it's importance which might account for only about 10%, but 10% is not 0 as you infer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6wkDDnSKV0
If you can refute Eric with the studies he has linked, please enlighten us further.
lol right. All scientific evidence found to date, yet there's nothing definitive about what you've stated either. I didn't say "0%"; I said it doesn't matter. Because it doesn't. Which is not a far cry from, "it does not matter much; especially for OP's current situation." But go ahead and argue a point that you've stated yourself doesn't matter in relation to this thread. *ETA - Especially since my post was not about providing OP with specific scientific facts so that she could debate her PT. I was providing a starting point and encouraged her to do her own research either here or elsewhere. I don't really understand the need to take my post, which said a variation of what almost every other poster said, and say that it's wrong because you inferred "0%" from my "it doesn't matter".
Someone else has already provided some links for you to check out. And I don't need any specific references to point out that if meal timing accounted for 10% variance, then we would know it. 10% variance can be a lot when you're talking about statistical significance.0 -
CurlyCockney wrote: »The clock is a human-mind construct. The human-body doesn't care what time it is. For nutrition advice, see a nutritionist, not a PT.
She got it from a friend who is a nutritionist and advice I could try it if I liked, but it wasn't an instruction, just something I thought it was worth trying out.
0 -
I meant dietician, sorry (I'm tired).
Lots of good advice on this thread though, so I for one am glad you asked :-)0 -
I eat whenever I'm feel I'm hungry. I don't count how many times I eat. Some days more, some days less in total meals.
I tell my clients the same. Find what works for them, just make sure they don't go over the allotted calories set for them to lose weight.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I would guess that (after a bit of internet research) that it's to do with not over eating, in that if you eat little and often, you shouldn't ever be starving hungry, at which point people often overeat to feel full.
As for my calorie intake, yes I do weigh foods and log accurately (otherwise what's the point!?!), however I use it has a target, not a strict limit, so some days I'm over, some days I'm under, as long as my weekly average is around 1300/1400 I'm happy as really, your body doesn't know what day it is, so measuring calories over a week seems a better idea.
As for weight loss, depending on how good I've been I lose around 2lbs a week (was more in the 1st 2 weeks, which is to be expected), but that seems a healthy amount too lose and I wouldn't choose to lose weight any quicker as I fear saggy skin more than I fear fat and at the rate I'm going I haven't noticed any yet!0 -
Trainers are not qualified to give nutrition advice and they know it. Well, they've been told, anyway. If you want dietary advice, see a dietitian.
I like smaller meals. I feel too stuffed eating two or three huge meals, plus I get hungrier during the day as the next meal time approaches. With smaller meals, I'm never hungry and I'm never stuffed. Much better for me.
Since some foods go better together than others, I can work in a much bigger variety of foods if I eat a bunch of little meals. That's very helpful, nutrition-wise.
I do seem to eat all day long, though.0 -
A couple of things. Meal timing does not matter. You will find sources that say it does, but I can guarantee those sources are trying to make money off you believing that. Or they heard it from someone trying to make money. I sometimes eat a single meal with all my daily calories. Sometimes I eat about 12 mini-meals because I spend the whole day grazing. I eat what I want when I want (just not necessarily AS MUCH as I want ).
Carb timing does not matter, unless you have a medical condition. I have type 1 diabetes, and it only moderately matters for me, but not for the reasons your PT claimed. Your body can use the energy from carbs even if you eat them right before you go to sleep. That is just a fact. I eat in bed watching Netflix almost every night, and all my snacks are high-carb. It has not affected my weight loss or my health in any way whatsoever.
Your PT is not a registered dietician who was trained on nutrition, so you should ignore the advice she's giving you, since it is incorrect. Either see a registered dietician, or stick around MFP to read what some of the regulars with higher post counts are saying.
And finally, I would agree with previous posters that 1300 calories is too low for someone of your size. HOWEVER. That assumes you are correctly weighing your food with a digital scale and logging everything. If you aren't, then you are probably eating more than 1300 calories already and increasing what you eat could be counterproductive to your goals. If you are weighing your foods and logging correctly, then yes, 1300 is too low. However, you should know if it's too low by how fast you're losing. Your body doesn't care if you're logging correctly or not, it will lose the weight based on the calories going in vs the calories you burn. If you are losing the weight rapidly, add calories and slow down. If the weight is coming off at a slow/steady pace, then you are most likely already eating more than 1300. In that case, you would want to tighten up your logging when you get closer to goal, but it may not matter so much right now.
There's a lot of misinformation out there about dieting, and it can be frustrating when you start to realize how much "common knowledge" about nutrition/dieting is simply false. Like I said, stick around and you can learn a lot on these forums.
Incorrect based on all scientific evidence and studies found to date. Like mentioned, it does not matter much; especially for OP's current situation.
It does matter, just very little. Eric Helms in his nutritional series points out it's importance which might account for only about 10%, but 10% is not 0 as you infer.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6wkDDnSKV0
If you can refute Eric with the studies he has linked, please enlighten us further.
lol right. All scientific evidence found to date, yet there's nothing definitive about what you've stated either. I didn't say "0%"; I said it doesn't matter. Because it doesn't. Which is not a far cry from, "it does not matter much; especially for OP's current situation." But go ahead and argue a point that you've stated yourself doesn't matter in relation to this thread. *ETA - Especially since my post was not about providing OP with specific scientific facts so that she could debate her PT. I was providing a starting point and encouraged her to do her own research either here or elsewhere. I don't really understand the need to take my post, which said a variation of what almost every other poster said, and say that it's wrong because you inferred "0%" from my "it doesn't matter".
Someone else has already provided some links for you to check out. And I don't need any specific references to point out that if meal timing accounted for 10% variance, then we would know it. 10% variance can be a lot when you're talking about statistical significance.
"But go ahead and argue a point that you've stated yourself doesn't matter in relation to this thread."
The whole point of the OP's thread was asking about meal frequency and timing. My reply back to you was only to suggest that when you tell someone that "it does not matter", they come away from that statement inferring that it has 0 influence. My follow up to that was to suggest that there is greater than 0 influence (some have represented this unfluence by as much as 10% in the scope of things...is it more or is it less, I cannot say...but can you honestly say that it is 0?...again what you infer.)
So if you are telling someone that it does not matter, does this mean that it matters a little bit now these days? Guess we went to different schools. And as pointed out by you, my statement was that "it did not matter much"
Never did I say it did not matter at all.0 -
Trainers are not qualified to give nutrition advice and they know it. Well, they've been told, anyway. If you want dietary advice, see a dietitian.
Even so, there are some dieticians, doctors, nutritionists, and other "qualified" people who should be giving sound nutritional advice and do not. While you're likely to receive better nutritional information "on average" from this crowd, they are human and make mistakes, too. And some are not even involved with fitness, just the nutrition aspect.
It's best to do your own research, ask questions, and approach the topic with a rational, scientific mind instead of believing all the bogus information that is floating around out there at face value (even if it's coming from a so-called professional). A second (third and fourth) opinion regarding your own nutrition is wise for just about any novice who is interested in learning more.0 -
More links and opinion at http://caloriesproper.com/meal-frequency-intermittent-fasting-and-dietary-protein/0
-
When you say research should be done in a rational and scientific way that eschews info coming from doctors and dietitians, what would that be?Trainers are not qualified to give nutrition advice and they know it. Well, they've been told, anyway. If you want dietary advice, see a dietitian.
Even so, there are some dieticians, doctors, nutritionists, and other "qualified" people who should be giving sound nutritional advice and do not. While you're likely to receive better nutritional information "on average" from this crowd, they are human and make mistakes, too. And some are not even involved with fitness, just the nutrition aspect.
It's best to do your own research, ask questions, and approach the topic with a rational, scientific mind instead of believing all the bogus information that is floating around out there at face value (even if it's coming from a so-called professional). A second (third and fourth) opinion regarding your own nutrition is wise for just about any novice who is interested in learning more.
0 -
It's personal preference. If you want to try it and see if you feel more satisfied doing it, certainly worth a try.
I really hate eating lots of little meals and could never do it. I do much better with 3 regular meals plus maybe a snack depending on my workout schedule.0 -
When you say research should be done in a rational and scientific way that eschews info coming from doctors and dietitians, what would that be?Trainers are not qualified to give nutrition advice and they know it. Well, they've been told, anyway. If you want dietary advice, see a dietitian.
Even so, there are some dieticians, doctors, nutritionists, and other "qualified" people who should be giving sound nutritional advice and do not. While you're likely to receive better nutritional information "on average" from this crowd, they are human and make mistakes, too. And some are not even involved with fitness, just the nutrition aspect.
It's best to do your own research, ask questions, and approach the topic with a rational, scientific mind instead of believing all the bogus information that is floating around out there at face value (even if it's coming from a so-called professional). A second (third and fourth) opinion regarding your own nutrition is wise for just about any novice who is interested in learning more.
Just making the point not to believe everything you are told at face value, even if it's coming from a person with "qualifications". Do your research and look to a multitude of sources for answers.
"Go see a dietician", is an easy answer to resort to when someone is asking for nutritional advice, and most of the time, that step is not needed. In some cases, depending on the person, it can actually be unhelpful and a step backwards, e.g. "a professional" suggesting 6 small meals a day is better than 3 normal meals, or one who spouts off old nutritional advice from the 1980s/90s, which has since been proven false.0 -
Personally, I've never been a grazer and when I graze it's mindless. I have to set aside time and eat mindfully. 3 meals works the best for me to reduce calorie intake.0
-
spittingpink wrote: »seems like there are mixed opinions, I think my main issue is growing up with a big evening meal, getting out of that habit of looking forward to that big tasty meal and all the carbs giving you that full feeling and getting my other half to change too.
If you enjoy your largest meal being evening why do you have to change it? You could space it out so that your meals look like 1/3 calories breakfast and lunch and 2/3 dinner. Or if youre a snack eater something like 25% breakfast, 25% lunch, 10% snacks, and 40% dinner of your daily calories.
0 -
spittingpink wrote: »I've heard you're supposed to get your carbs earlier on in the day when you can use them, rather than at nite. my PT has given me a basic diet plan things she's trying that is 6 meals a day.
Meal one - Carbohydrates protein and healthy fat (Bigger meal)
Meal two - Protein vegetable carbohydrates (snack)
Meal three - Protein vegetable carbohydrates (Bigger meal)
Meal four - Quark or total greek yogurt mixed with seeds and berries (snack)
Meal five - Protein, vegetables with cherry tomatoes or beetroot (Bigger meal)
Meal six - 2 scoops of whey protein powder, healthy fat (snack)
They there is a list of all the different types of protein, veg, carbs, healthy fats, etc....
Good luck that would be too complicated and time consuming for me. 3 meals w/ an emphasis on veggies has worked the best for me in the past.
0 -
I didn't read all the comments, but here is my 2 cents on when you eat. Do what works for you! I find grazing to be better for me overall. If I don't have snacks I overeat.
0 -
I have tried a lot of eating patterns; I've landed on four meals a day. This is my sweet spot: enough to make me comfortably full but not overly; I can space them so that I get pleasantly hungry before I eat; four meals provide enough variety but don't demand inventing the wheel anew every day; I have something nice to look forward to several times every day, but it doesn't split up the flow or make food the main focus (or it doesn't have to, at least).0
-
Ah....Personal Trainer. Try all their advice regarding getting in shape, and take all nutrition advice with a grain of salt.
Personally, I have eaten like a diabetic too long to know anything else. I get hungry every few hours. So I eat like a diabetic, with snacks in between meals.
Eat somewhere between 1300 and 1600 calories a day and you should be fine.0 -
A couple of things. Meal timing does not matter. You will find sources that say it does, but I can guarantee those sources are trying to make money off you believing that. Or they heard it from someone trying to make money. I sometimes eat a single meal with all my daily calories. Sometimes I eat about 12 mini-meals because I spend the whole day grazing. I eat what I want when I want (just not necessarily AS MUCH as I want ).
Carb timing does not matter, unless you have a medical condition. I have type 1 diabetes, and it only moderately matters for me, but not for the reasons your PT claimed. Your body can use the energy from carbs even if you eat them right before you go to sleep. That is just a fact. I eat in bed watching Netflix almost every night, and all my snacks are high-carb. It has not affected my weight loss or my health in any way whatsoever.
Your PT is not a registered dietician who was trained on nutrition, so you should ignore the advice she's giving you, since it is incorrect. Either see a registered dietician, or stick around MFP to read what some of the regulars with higher post counts are saying.
And finally, I would agree with previous posters that 1300 calories is too low for someone of your size. HOWEVER. That assumes you are correctly weighing your food with a digital scale and logging everything. If you aren't, then you are probably eating more than 1300 calories already and increasing what you eat could be counterproductive to your goals. If you are weighing your foods and logging correctly, then yes, 1300 is too low. However, you should know if it's too low by how fast you're losing. Your body doesn't care if you're logging correctly or not, it will lose the weight based on the calories going in vs the calories you burn. If you are losing the weight rapidly, add calories and slow down. If the weight is coming off at a slow/steady pace, then you are most likely already eating more than 1300. In that case, you would want to tighten up your logging when you get closer to goal, but it may not matter so much right now.
There's a lot of misinformation out there about dieting, and it can be frustrating when you start to realize how much "common knowledge" about nutrition/dieting is simply false. Like I said, stick around and you can learn a lot on these forums.
Incorrect based on all scientific evidence and studies found to date. Like mentioned, it does not matter much; especially for OP's current situation.
It does matter, just very little. Eric Helms in his nutritional series points out it's importance which might account for only about 10%, but 10% is not 0 as you infer.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6wkDDnSKV0
If you can refute Eric with the studies he has linked, please enlighten us further.
lol right. All scientific evidence found to date, yet there's nothing definitive about what you've stated either. I didn't say "0%"; I said it doesn't matter. Because it doesn't. Which is not a far cry from, "it does not matter much; especially for OP's current situation." But go ahead and argue a point that you've stated yourself doesn't matter in relation to this thread. *ETA - Especially since my post was not about providing OP with specific scientific facts so that she could debate her PT. I was providing a starting point and encouraged her to do her own research either here or elsewhere. I don't really understand the need to take my post, which said a variation of what almost every other poster said, and say that it's wrong because you inferred "0%" from my "it doesn't matter".
Someone else has already provided some links for you to check out. And I don't need any specific references to point out that if meal timing accounted for 10% variance, then we would know it. 10% variance can be a lot when you're talking about statistical significance.
"But go ahead and argue a point that you've stated yourself doesn't matter in relation to this thread."
The whole point of the OP's thread was asking about meal frequency and timing. My reply back to you was only to suggest that when you tell someone that "it does not matter", they come away from that statement inferring that it has 0 influence. My follow up to that was to suggest that there is greater than 0 influence (some have represented this unfluence by as much as 10% in the scope of things...is it more or is it less, I cannot say...but can you honestly say that it is 0?...again what you infer.)
So if you are telling someone that it does not matter, does this mean that it matters a little bit now these days? Guess we went to different schools. And as pointed out by you, my statement was that "it did not matter much"
Never did I say it did not matter at all.
If it were a fact that meal timing accounted for even 1% of the variance of weight loss effectiveness (which it is not), my answer to OP would still be, "it doesn't matter." I'm not sure why you feel the need to argue that I should have included "much" at the end of a sentence that expresses the same sentiment as everyone else here. I was not writing a conclusion for a peer-reviewed research study. I gave my opinion and suggested OP do her own research. Because even if meal timing were consistently shown to have that much of an effect on weight loss (hint: it hasn't), 1% would not be enough for me to conclude that meal timing matters enough to worry about it.
I'm guessing you don't actually want a response about the type of schooling I received, and that your remark was only intended to mock my intelligence because I worded something incorrectly in your opinion?0 -
A couple of things. Meal timing does not matter. You will find sources that say it does, but I can guarantee those sources are trying to make money off you believing that. Or they heard it from someone trying to make money. I sometimes eat a single meal with all my daily calories. Sometimes I eat about 12 mini-meals because I spend the whole day grazing. I eat what I want when I want (just not necessarily AS MUCH as I want ).
Carb timing does not matter, unless you have a medical condition. I have type 1 diabetes, and it only moderately matters for me, but not for the reasons your PT claimed. Your body can use the energy from carbs even if you eat them right before you go to sleep. That is just a fact. I eat in bed watching Netflix almost every night, and all my snacks are high-carb. It has not affected my weight loss or my health in any way whatsoever.
Your PT is not a registered dietician who was trained on nutrition, so you should ignore the advice she's giving you, since it is incorrect. Either see a registered dietician, or stick around MFP to read what some of the regulars with higher post counts are saying.
And finally, I would agree with previous posters that 1300 calories is too low for someone of your size. HOWEVER. That assumes you are correctly weighing your food with a digital scale and logging everything. If you aren't, then you are probably eating more than 1300 calories already and increasing what you eat could be counterproductive to your goals. If you are weighing your foods and logging correctly, then yes, 1300 is too low. However, you should know if it's too low by how fast you're losing. Your body doesn't care if you're logging correctly or not, it will lose the weight based on the calories going in vs the calories you burn. If you are losing the weight rapidly, add calories and slow down. If the weight is coming off at a slow/steady pace, then you are most likely already eating more than 1300. In that case, you would want to tighten up your logging when you get closer to goal, but it may not matter so much right now.
There's a lot of misinformation out there about dieting, and it can be frustrating when you start to realize how much "common knowledge" about nutrition/dieting is simply false. Like I said, stick around and you can learn a lot on these forums.
Incorrect based on all scientific evidence and studies found to date. Like mentioned, it does not matter much; especially for OP's current situation.
It does matter, just very little. Eric Helms in his nutritional series points out it's importance which might account for only about 10%, but 10% is not 0 as you infer.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6wkDDnSKV0
If you can refute Eric with the studies he has linked, please enlighten us further.
lol right. All scientific evidence found to date, yet there's nothing definitive about what you've stated either. I didn't say "0%"; I said it doesn't matter. Because it doesn't. Which is not a far cry from, "it does not matter much; especially for OP's current situation." But go ahead and argue a point that you've stated yourself doesn't matter in relation to this thread. *ETA - Especially since my post was not about providing OP with specific scientific facts so that she could debate her PT. I was providing a starting point and encouraged her to do her own research either here or elsewhere. I don't really understand the need to take my post, which said a variation of what almost every other poster said, and say that it's wrong because you inferred "0%" from my "it doesn't matter".
Someone else has already provided some links for you to check out. And I don't need any specific references to point out that if meal timing accounted for 10% variance, then we would know it. 10% variance can be a lot when you're talking about statistical significance.
"But go ahead and argue a point that you've stated yourself doesn't matter in relation to this thread."
The whole point of the OP's thread was asking about meal frequency and timing. My reply back to you was only to suggest that when you tell someone that "it does not matter", they come away from that statement inferring that it has 0 influence. My follow up to that was to suggest that there is greater than 0 influence (some have represented this unfluence by as much as 10% in the scope of things...is it more or is it less, I cannot say...but can you honestly say that it is 0?...again what you infer.)
So if you are telling someone that it does not matter, does this mean that it matters a little bit now these days? Guess we went to different schools. And as pointed out by you, my statement was that "it did not matter much"
Never did I say it did not matter at all.
If it were a fact that meal timing accounted for even 1% of the variance of weight loss effectiveness (which it is not), my answer to OP would still be, "it doesn't matter." I'm not sure why you feel the need to argue that I should have included "much" at the end of a sentence that expresses the same sentiment as everyone else here. I was not writing a conclusion for a peer-reviewed research study. I gave my opinion and suggested OP do her own research. Because even if meal timing were consistently shown to have that much of an effect on weight loss (hint: it hasn't), 1% would not be enough for me to conclude that meal timing matters enough to worry about it.
I'm guessing you don't actually want a response about the type of schooling I received, and that your remark was only intended to mock my intelligence because I worded something incorrectly in your opinion?
You can have all of the schooling in the world, but if your statement is taken one way due to stating it as an absolute (and the statement you made inferred that the outcome would be absolute 0) and there is not an absolute, then it is wrong by definition.
And we both agree in the context of the OP that it is not enough to worry about as I previously stated. Since the context of her statement also evolved around a physical trainer, she is training. But again, she is at the far end of the spectrum of needing to worry about meal frequency or nutrient timing closer to 0, but on the other end of the spectrum is an athelete that trains with higher frequency and demands whose meal frequency and timing would cause greater impact to his/her body composition (so maybe closer to that 10% I mentioned). So I don't understand why someone can't see the gradations between the two and know that they exist.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions