6 meals v.s. 3 big meals

Options
THE_CLOCK
THE_CLOCK Posts: 10 Member
in Food and Nutrition
There are different opinions on the matter. 6 meals a day spaces out nutrients more evenly and keeps metabolism up. However, it supposedly weakens overall insulin response and since the body is constantly fed, the body has no need to burn fat for energy.

My question is this. What do you follow and what results have you seen. Have you tried both strategies? Which worked best?

If I go to 3 meals, do I just merge two meals together?



«1

Replies

  • FitPhillygirl
    FitPhillygirl Posts: 7,124 Member
    edited November 2015
    Options
    Eating 6 meals a day does not keep your metabolism up any more than if you ate 2 or 3 times a day. I eat 6 times a day for medical reasons. There is no right or wrong when it comes to how many times a day to eat. Just fuel your body with the amount of calories that it needs each day.....
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,565 Member
    Options
    It's all personal preference. I do three meals, a possible snack, and dessert, which is what I've been brought up to eat (though the regular dessert came once I hit adulthood).
  • THE_CLOCK
    THE_CLOCK Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    It is personal preference. But my personal preference is the strategy that will benefit me the most. Mmmmmm.....dessert!
  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,220 Member
    Options
    THE_CLOCK wrote: »
    There are different opinions on the matter. 6 meals a day spaces out nutrients more evenly and keeps metabolism up. However, it supposedly weakens overall insulin response and since the body is constantly fed, the body has no need to burn fat for energy.

    My question is this. What do you follow and what results have you seen. Have you tried both strategies? Which worked best?

    If I go to 3 meals, do I just merge two meals together?



    The "metabolic boost" you get from eating meals is the Thermic Effect of Food and is directly proportionate to the amount of calories and macro break down that you eat.

    This means 3 meals is 3 very large spikes. 6 meals is 6 smaller spikes. If you don't have a medical condition in which you need to worry about blood sugar or insulin eating should be a personal preference. Studies have shown a slight increase in metabolism between 14-16 hours in the fasted state. Insulin sensitivity can be improved slightly with carb cycling, not with meal timing.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,172 Member
    Options
    THE_CLOCK wrote: »
    There are different opinions on the matter. 6 meals a day spaces out nutrients more evenly and keeps metabolism up. However, it supposedly weakens overall insulin response and since the body is constantly fed, the body has no need to burn fat for energy.

    My question is this. What do you follow and what results have you seen. Have you tried both strategies? Which worked best?

    If I go to 3 meals, do I just merge two meals together?



    There may be different opinions, but the actual research shows that there is no change to the overall metabolism for the day connected to meal frequency. The only one who have differing opinions are those who have not kept up with the science. The science is pretty much in completely agreement on that, although there may be other things that will come up in future study.

    With the best of information we have now, the take away is this, for weight loss eat at whatever pattern will help you to continue to comply with your calorie goals. For some that is a bunch of small meals. For others is it few larger meals. The weight loss from either will be the same as long as calorie intake is the same.
  • THE_CLOCK
    THE_CLOCK Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    O.k. So, lets assume that calorie goals will be met and metabolism will be equal with either choice. What about the research concerning insulin desensitization with frequent meals?
  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,220 Member
    Options
    THE_CLOCK wrote: »
    O.k. So, lets assume that calorie goals will be met and metabolism will be equal with either choice. What about the research concerning insulin desensitization with frequent meals?

    Do you have a medical issue? If not then I haven't seen any research showing that, at least not research where the subject were fed balanced macros.
  • THE_CLOCK
    THE_CLOCK Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    No medical issues concerning insulin. I was just reading some articles and am trying to figure it out. I eat 6 a day. Clean. But there are many who say that if you do not have a medical issue to eat 3 or 4 big meals. Mostly because of insulin spikes, avoid insulin desensitization, let the body use stored fat.....

    usmcmp, you are ripped up, what do you do?
  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,220 Member
    Options
    THE_CLOCK wrote: »
    No medical issues concerning insulin. I was just reading some articles and am trying to figure it out. I eat 6 a day. Clean. But there are many who say that if you do not have a medical issue to eat 3 or 4 big meals. Mostly because of insulin spikes, avoid insulin desensitization, let the body use stored fat.....

    usmcmp, you are ripped up, what do you do?

    I eat when I'm hungry. Sometimes that is 3 meals, usually it's 5 to 8 "meals". Sometimes it's cake, sometimes it's chicken and vegetables, sometimes it's a snack cake. I hit appropriate macros and I lift 4 days per week. Some days it's lots of protein, fruits and vegetables. Some days there's significant amounts of sweets.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    THE_CLOCK wrote: »
    No medical issues concerning insulin. I was just reading some articles and am trying to figure it out. I eat 6 a day. Clean. But there are many who say that if you do not have a medical issue to eat 3 or 4 big meals. Mostly because of insulin spikes, avoid insulin desensitization, let the body use stored fat.....

    usmcmp, you are ripped up, what do you do?

    You should go with whatever improves your ability to adhere to your diet. Losing fat and maintaining a reasonable bodyweight will improve insulin sensitivity as will exercise.

  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,160 Member
    Options
    In my case it seems to depend on my macro. Currently I am only eating twice a day because that is when I get hungry.

    The big downside health wise of eating six times for some is that it tends to keep one's blood glucose level elevated over 100 more hours of the day.

    I agree going with whatever improves one's ability to stick with one's successful diet.

    @THE_CLOCK welcome to the MFP forums and the best to your success.
  • THE_CLOCK
    THE_CLOCK Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    It is such a learning process. SideSteel, you food diary rocks! So basically, only deficit matters, the rest is arbitrary....
  • THE_CLOCK
    THE_CLOCK Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    Thanks Gale. I recently deleted my old account to focus only on the fitness. I just saw my posts at 6. LOL! It used to be over 10,000. Yeah starting over, good times.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    THE_CLOCK wrote: »
    It is such a learning process. SideSteel, you food diary rocks! So basically, only deficit matters, the rest is arbitrary....

    LOL I haven't logged my food in months.

    I wouldn't say that calories are all that matters.

    But I WOULD say that calories in/out is entirely valid and it's the main determinant in changes in energy storage (and stored energy is basically muscle/fat/glycogen).

    It can become quite easy to focus on things that are either unimportant or conditionally important such that you lose sight of the things that are VERY important.

    Diet adherence and energy balance are very important.

    And I'm willing to bet that maintaining a reasonable body-weight will do more for insulin sensitivity than a specific meal frequency will. I'm willing to be proven wrong on that bet.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    Also, I'm not at all convinced that frequent feeding will blunt whole body fat oxidation. If you are consuming fewer calories than you burn over time, you are going to oxidize more fat than you will store. This will happen regardless of the meal pattern.
  • THE_CLOCK
    THE_CLOCK Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    That makes sense. Thank you for the enlightenment. I suppose I will need to experiment a little.
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    Options
    First part - may have some merit, but for all practical purposes, *kitten*.

    Second part - neither; I eat 4 meals. Have tried 3 and 6, but 4 definitely works best for me.

    Third part - do whatever you like. Most people prefer "breakfast, lunch, dinner", but much out of habit and tradition, there are few set rules you have to follow.
  • Michael190lbs
    Michael190lbs Posts: 1,510 Member
    Options
    I had an 800 calorie breakfast and a 1400 calorie lunch (2200 caloric goal) so I eat twice today my point is it all comes down to calories once your minimum Macros are met
  • THE_CLOCK
    THE_CLOCK Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    So, lunch is your last meal until the following breakfast?
  • distinctlybeautiful
    distinctlybeautiful Posts: 1,041 Member
    Options
    I usually eat more smaller meals. Partly I do this because I tend to get full quickly when I eat meals. It's just easier for me to eat less more often. I've lost six percent body fat so far eating that way, so that thing about not burning fat because you're always eating.. that sounds like a myth to me.

Categories