Every 2 to 3 hours

jenn50
jenn50 Posts: 81
edited September 29 in Food and Nutrition
Do any of you eat every 2 to 3 hours? Small meals? Does it work for you?

Replies

  • aling01
    aling01 Posts: 163
    yes i eat every 2 - 3 hours...i make sure there's carb, fat and protein.....and it works for me.
  • portexploit
    portexploit Posts: 378 Member
    I perfer one meal a day, why do i want to spend a ton of time in the kitchen? I rather be doing other things. It's not really 1 meal but from 5-9 i eat my meals.
  • OliveJuice821
    OliveJuice821 Posts: 34
    I don't, but I do eat regularly. You can either eat a lot of small meals, or a few larger meals (nothing too big of course). You never really want to go more than 4 or 5 hours without eating though, or you run the risk of your blood sugar dropping and you end up feeling like crap XD

    I tend to have smaller meals throughout the day, usually around the same time everyday, which is what your metabolism needs to regulate itself. Once it's used to a regular eating schedule, it can start working on working faster, ya know?
  • OliveJuice821
    OliveJuice821 Posts: 34
    I perfer one meal a day, why do i want to spend a ton of time in the kitchen? I rather be doing other things. It's not really 1 meal but from 5-9 i eat my meals.

    And that's why you won't lose weight. Eating once a day is terrible for you, even if you manage to get your calories in for the day. If cooking is such a pain, spend one day a week cooking meals and making snacks for the rest of the week so you can just grab and go. It would limit your time in the kitchen, but you'd also be eating a lot healthier and regularly which is what your body needs to function. It's more than calories. You need carbs throughout the day just for energy, otherwise you're running on steam and hurting yourself from the inside out.
  • portexploit
    portexploit Posts: 378 Member
    I perfer one meal a day, why do i want to spend a ton of time in the kitchen? I rather be doing other things. It's not really 1 meal but from 5-9 i eat my meals.

    And that's why you won't lose weight. Eating once a day is terrible for you, even if you manage to get your calories in for the day. If cooking is such a pain, spend one day a week cooking meals and making snacks for the rest of the week so you can just grab and go. It would limit your time in the kitchen, but you'd also be eating a lot healthier and regularly which is what your body needs to function. It's more than calories. You need carbs throughout the day just for energy, otherwise you're running on steam and hurting yourself from the inside out.

    That’s why I haven’t lost any weight? I lost 30lbs eating like this. It’s called “intermittent fasting”. It has the benefits of detoxification to some extent which you won’t get eating multiple times a day.

    I’d be eating a lot healthier? My diet is pretty clean.

    I used to make prepared food for the week when I was in bodybuilding.
    I’ll be honest with you, what is terrible for you is getting information from fitness magazines and not educating yourself with scientific studies, blindly believing things is what’s bad for you.
  • portexploit
    portexploit Posts: 378 Member
    Do any of you eat every 2 to 3 hours? Small meals? Does it work for you?

    By the way you stated your question. It appears you really don’t want to be eating every 2-3hrs. Rumors are eating every 2-3hrs speeds up your metabolism. This is a complete lie. Here is the scientific research to back it up.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8399092

    It makes no difference if you eat 1 meal or 20 meals through the day. Your calories aren’t going to “magically” turn in to more calories. If you burn 2000 calories a day and eat 1500 calories in 10 meals or 1 meal, your caloric deficit is still 500.
  • tbrown1025
    tbrown1025 Posts: 165
    Do any of you eat every 2 to 3 hours? Small meals? Does it work for you?

    By the way you stated your question. It appears you really don’t want to be eating every 2-3hrs. Rumors are eating every 2-3hrs speeds up your metabolism. This is a complete lie. Here is the scientific research to back it up.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8399092

    It makes no difference if you eat 1 meal or 20 meals through the day. Your calories aren’t going to “magically” turn in to more calories. If you burn 2000 calories a day and eat 1500 calories in 10 meals or 1 meal, your caloric deficit is still 500.

    This is what I personally believe as well, based on the information I've read. I just however prefer to space out my meals. I don't like to eat a lot at one sitting, so yes, several small "meals" works for me. I do think this is a personal preference. :)
  • portexploit
    portexploit Posts: 378 Member
    yes i agree, its a personal preference.
  • The_Saint
    The_Saint Posts: 358 Member
    My personal preference?
    Eat 2 to 3 hours....
    The results for me speak for themselves.
  • jenn50
    jenn50 Posts: 81
    Do any of you eat every 2 to 3 hours? Small meals? Does it work for you?

    By the way you stated your question. It appears you really don’t want to be eating every 2-3hrs. Rumors are eating every 2-3hrs speeds up your metabolism. This is a complete lie. Here is the scientific research to back it up.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8399092

    It makes no difference if you eat 1 meal or 20 meals through the day. Your calories aren’t going to “magically” turn in to more calories. If you burn 2000 calories a day and eat 1500 calories in 10 meals or 1 meal, your caloric deficit is still 500.
    I do actually eat small meals through out the day. No problem. Also detoxification can be done through drinking plenty of water. Your way is not for everyone. And if your reading the scientific fact them it's the same thing as to reading a fitness magazine. Also for done spacing meals does great for the metabolism. Just saying.
  • portexploit
    portexploit Posts: 378 Member
    Do any of you eat every 2 to 3 hours? Small meals? Does it work for you?

    By the way you stated your question. It appears you really don’t want to be eating every 2-3hrs. Rumors are eating every 2-3hrs speeds up your metabolism. This is a complete lie. Here is the scientific research to back it up.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8399092

    It makes no difference if you eat 1 meal or 20 meals through the day. Your calories aren’t going to “magically” turn in to more calories. If you burn 2000 calories a day and eat 1500 calories in 10 meals or 1 meal, your caloric deficit is still 500.
    I do actually eat small meals through out the day. No problem. Also detoxification can be done through drinking plenty of water. Your way is not for everyone. And if your reading the scientific fact them it's the same thing as to reading a fitness magazine. Also for done spacing meals does great for the metabolism. Just saying.

    Your ways aren't for everyone either. As we mention it's personal preference. Drinkng plenty of water does what? Clean out the kidneys? What abot the colon and digestive system? The entire eating 6 meals a day came from the meal replacment companies. I already posted a study how it makes no difference. Most fitness magazines are owned by a supplement company, they push "theories" so you buy their product.

    What you mean "Spacing meals does great for metabolism?" That's like saying, "Water does wonders for drinking"!!?!?!?!
  • jenn50
    jenn50 Posts: 81
    Do any of you eat every 2 to 3 hours? Small meals? Does it work for you?

    By the way you stated your question. It appears you really don’t want to be eating every 2-3hrs. Rumors are eating every 2-3hrs speeds up your metabolism. This is a complete lie. Here is the scientific research to back it up.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8399092

    It makes no difference if you eat 1 meal or 20 meals through the day. Your calories aren’t going to “magically” turn in to more calories. If you burn 2000 calories a day and eat 1500 calories in 10 meals or 1 meal, your caloric deficit is still 500. Water does do great
    I do actually eat small meals through out the day. No problem. Also detoxification can be done through drinking plenty of water. Your way is not for everyone. And if your reading the scientific fact them it's the same thing as to reading a fitness magazine. Also for done spacing meals does great for the metabolism. Just saying.

    Your ways aren't for everyone either. As we mention it's personal preference. Drinkng plenty of water does what? Clean out the kidneys? What abot the colon and digestive system? The entire eating 6 meals a day came from the meal replacment companies. I already posted a study how it makes no difference. Most fitness magazines are owned by a supplement company, they push "theories" so you buy their product.

    What you mean "Spacing meals does great for metabolism?" That's like saying, "Water does wonders for drinking"!!?!?!?!
  • torregro
    torregro Posts: 307

    By the way you stated your question. It appears you really don’t want to be eating every 2-3hrs. Rumors are eating every 2-3hrs speeds up your metabolism. This is a complete lie. Here is the scientific research to back it up.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8399092

    Statements like this one are what make me quit reading the forums periodically. This was a study that lasted TWO WHOLE WEEKS and was done in 1993. The link you have provided is only to the abstract and not the whole study, so the methodology cannot even be looked at. A two week study about dieting.............really?
  • portexploit
    portexploit Posts: 378 Member

    By the way you stated your question. It appears you really don’t want to be eating every 2-3hrs. Rumors are eating every 2-3hrs speeds up your metabolism. This is a complete lie. Here is the scientific research to back it up.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8399092

    Statements like this one are what make me quit reading the forums periodically. This was a study that lasted TWO WHOLE WEEKS and was done in 1993. The link you have provided is only to the abstract and not the whole study, so the methodology cannot even be looked at. A two week study about dieting.............really?

    I understand what you mean about the post sometimes on mfp. People don't like to read things that are against what they believe. If someone reads a post on which they agree on, they all get happy, if they read a post they don't agree on, they don't like it very much.

    I don't think it makes a difference if it was a 2 weeks or a year. It's not like you're going to burn up more calories by eating more. A law of thermodynamics states that energy can't be created or destroyed, only transformed. Meaning if you eat 1500 calories a day in 1 meal or 50 meals it makes no difference, it's still 1500.

    I don't know why people criticize the date, i forgot... we evolved sooooooooo much metabolically in the last few years. I would understand the disagreement of the 2 week study if it was something about how a food has a certain effect on the body, such as can prevent/cure illness. This isn't the case with this study.
  • 4KidFather
    4KidFather Posts: 134
    I'll 'interval eat' when I am VERY active doing High Intensity workouts like P90X or Insanity. Otherwise I fall into one big meal in the evening AND intermittent fasting (usually around Lent). I will still do some pretty heavy lifting and running at this time too though.

    Soooo, different eating strategies for different goals.

    I think as long as your eating 'food' it's all good. Frequent eating is admittedly a bit of a pain though with time, prep, and dishes, entering data into myfitnesspal ... :) etcc.
    Do any of you eat every 2 to 3 hours? Small meals? Does it work for you?
  • RangerSteve
    RangerSteve Posts: 437
    I don't, but I do eat regularly. You can either eat a lot of small meals, or a few larger meals (nothing too big of course). You never really want to go more than 4 or 5 hours without eating though, or you run the risk of your blood sugar dropping and you end up feeling like crap XD

    I tend to have smaller meals throughout the day, usually around the same time everyday, which is what your metabolism needs to regulate itself. Once it's used to a regular eating schedule, it can start working on working faster, ya know?

    Blood sugar dropping isn't really a problem unless you have issues with your blood sugar to begin with. Glucagon is a hormone in the body that raises blood sugar when there isn't food in the body to do so. Think about it. If blood sugar remained really low during times of fasting (especially in as little as 4-5 hours) how would we have survived over the thousands of years we've been hunting and gathering? Your body will adjust to not having food in your system. Read up on glucagon:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucagon

    This is also why people who fast often say they feel fine.
  • mamagooskie
    mamagooskie Posts: 2,964 Member
    I do.....I eat pretty much every 2-3 hours....not meals but snacks.

    I have breakfast and between that and lunch I'll have fruit or yogurt then between lunch and dinner since it's a bigger stretch I'll have 2-3 snacks and I vary what I have, fruit, veggies, hummus, protein shake, etc, then after dinner I like to have "dessert" and that can fruit and a coffee or tea and popcorn or whatever and usually I go to bed sometime after that snack within 2 hours usually until I repeat again the next day.

    works well for me!
  • torregro
    torregro Posts: 307
    I understand what you mean about the post sometimes on mfp. People don't like to read things that are against what they believe. If someone reads a post on which they agree on, they all get happy, if they read a post they don't agree on, they don't like it very much.

    I don't think it makes a difference if it was a 2 weeks or a year. It's not like you're going to burn up more calories by eating more. A law of thermodynamics states that energy can't be created or destroyed, only transformed. Meaning if you eat 1500 calories a day in 1 meal or 50 meals it makes no difference, it's still 1500.

    I don't know why people criticize the date, i forgot... we evolved sooooooooo much metabolically in the last few years. I would understand the disagreement of the 2 week study if it was something about how a food has a certain effect on the body, such as can prevent/cure illness. This isn't the case with this study.

    I have no quarrel with you, or your premise, or even, for that matter, the study that you have cited..........except that you have not provided a link to a study, you've provided a link to an abstract, and it's hardly the same. Without being able to read this 18 year old study, I don't know anything really about it's premise, or the methodology, other than the fact that it was a 14 day study, and for 12 of those 14 days, the participants were left at home, unsupervised, presumably to eat whenever and whatever they wanted......of course we all know they stayed right on the protocol every minute, right? LOL

    I can't HAVE an opinion about the validity of any study without actually reading it, and far too often on this site, members toss out links to "back up" their point of view, when those studies are in the form of abstracts, or clips from magazines, lay press, youtube videos, infomercials and the like. I am not likely to spend $500 to subscribe to a journal just to read one study in its entirety. I think everyone is entitled to their opinions about eating and nutrition, but they're just that.........opinions.........even when backed up by an 18 year old abstract from the Netherlands done with 10 male participants. Peace.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I don't, but I do eat regularly. You can either eat a lot of small meals, or a few larger meals (nothing too big of course). You never really want to go more than 4 or 5 hours without eating though, or you run the risk of your blood sugar dropping and you end up feeling like crap XD

    I tend to have smaller meals throughout the day, usually around the same time everyday, which is what your metabolism needs to regulate itself. Once it's used to a regular eating schedule, it can start working on working faster, ya know?

    Blood sugar dropping isn't really a problem unless you have issues with your blood sugar to begin with. Glucagon is a hormone in the body that raises blood sugar when there isn't food in the body to do so. Think about it. If blood sugar remained really low during times of fasting (especially in as little as 4-5 hours) how would we have survived over the thousands of years we've been hunting and gathering? Your body will adjust to not having food in your system. Read up on glucagon:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucagon

    This is also why people who fast often say they feel fine.

    And why the concept of "fasted cardio" is basically hooey.
  • mynameisnutz
    mynameisnutz Posts: 123
    I have no quarrel with you, or your premise, or even, for that matter, the study that you have cited..........except that you have not provided a link to a study, you've provided a link to an abstract, and it's hardly the same. Without being able to read this 18 year old study, I don't know anything really about it's premise, or the methodology, other than the fact that it was a 14 day study, and for 12 of those 14 days, the participants were left at home, unsupervised, presumably to eat whenever and whatever they wanted......of course we all know they stayed right on the protocol every minute, right? LOL

    I can't HAVE an opinion about the validity of any study without actually reading it, and far too often on this site, members toss out links to "back up" their point of view, when those studies are in the form of abstracts, or clips from magazines, lay press, youtube videos, infomercials and the like. I am not likely to spend $500 to subscribe to a journal just to read one study in its entirety. I think everyone is entitled to their opinions about eating and nutrition, but they're just that.........opinions.........even when backed up by an 18 year old abstract from the Netherlands done with 10 male participants. Peace.

    Hey bro,

    If for some reason oldness of the study in your mind affects the validity of it, try this one on for size:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985

    If you dont care enough to register for the entire study (free) that is not my problem, nor does it lessen the validity of said study.

    Another- an extensive review of several studies on the same matter. (Although this was published in 1997, so perhaps it doesn't meet your "criteria" for being valid scholarship?)

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

    The fact of the matter is, meal frequency and timing having any effect on metabolism has been debunked multiple times over the years in a variety of valid, peer-reviewed studies, not to mention thousands and thousands of anecdotal cases. Peace.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I have no quarrel with you, or your premise, or even, for that matter, the study that you have cited..........except that you have not provided a link to a study, you've provided a link to an abstract, and it's hardly the same. Without being able to read this 18 year old study, I don't know anything really about it's premise, or the methodology, other than the fact that it was a 14 day study, and for 12 of those 14 days, the participants were left at home, unsupervised, presumably to eat whenever and whatever they wanted......of course we all know they stayed right on the protocol every minute, right? LOL

    I can't HAVE an opinion about the validity of any study without actually reading it, and far too often on this site, members toss out links to "back up" their point of view, when those studies are in the form of abstracts, or clips from magazines, lay press, youtube videos, infomercials and the like. I am not likely to spend $500 to subscribe to a journal just to read one study in its entirety. I think everyone is entitled to their opinions about eating and nutrition, but they're just that.........opinions.........even when backed up by an 18 year old abstract from the Netherlands done with 10 male participants. Peace.

    Hey bro,

    If for some reason oldness of the study in your mind affects the validity of it, try this one on for size:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985

    If you dont care enough to register for the entire study (free) that is not my problem, nor does it lessen the validity of said study.

    Another- an extensive review of several studies on the same matter. (Although this was published in 1997, so perhaps it doesn't meet your "criteria" for being valid scholarship?)

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

    The fact of the matter is, meal frequency and timing having any effect on metabolism has been debunked multiple times over the years in a variety of valid, peer-reviewed studies, not to mention thousands and thousands of anecdotal cases. Peace.

    Here's an analysis of the second study cited, for those who want an "interpreted" version.

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html

    Bottom line: Many people may find that increased meal frequency works for them -- for what whatever reason. There is nothing wrong with that approach. However, as you clearly point out, there is no scientific basis for asserting -- as too many people do-- that increased meal frequency should be the "preferred" approach or that it "increases metabolism".
  • BR1986FB
    BR1986FB Posts: 1,515 Member
    And that's why you won't lose weight.

    Have you ever done intermittent fasting for a prolonged period of time (months, years, etc)? If you haven't you shouldn't really be commenting and pulling these armchair quarterback comments out of thin air. It is VERY effective.

    My post wasn't specifically to jump on YOU but it grinds my gears when people just throw these comments out as fact when they probably haven't ever done intermittent fasting.
  • dustyhockeymom
    dustyhockeymom Posts: 537 Member
    I usually eat breakfast, lunch, an afternoon snack, dinner and a treat after dinner if I have calories left. I tried eating smaller meals a little closer together and I wasn't satisfied and ended up eating more. I have read about it being better than to eat more calories earlier in the day, but I find that I am hungriest at dinner. I was never a breakfast eater before this, and I could routinely go until lunch late in the afternoon with nothing, so I may adjust as time goes on. I think it is important to listen to your body and find what works for you.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    And that's why you won't lose weight.

    Have you ever done intermittent fasting for a prolonged period of time (months, years, etc)? If you haven't you shouldn't really be commenting and pulling these armchair quarterback comments out of thin air. It is VERY effective.

    My post wasn't specifically to jump on YOU but it grinds my gears when people just throw these comments out as fact when they probably haven't ever done intermittent fasting.

    I agree, but also point out that the opposite holds true--those who follow personal programs like IF and use their anecdotal experience to assert that it is a "better" method or that everyone should be doing it. (Not implying that you were doing that, just a general "grinds my gears" comment).
  • BR1986FB
    BR1986FB Posts: 1,515 Member
    And that's why you won't lose weight.

    Have you ever done intermittent fasting for a prolonged period of time (months, years, etc)? If you haven't you shouldn't really be commenting and pulling these armchair quarterback comments out of thin air. It is VERY effective.

    My post wasn't specifically to jump on YOU but it grinds my gears when people just throw these comments out as fact when they probably haven't ever done intermittent fasting.

    I agree, but also point out that the opposite holds true--those who follow personal programs like IF and use their anecdotal experience to assert that it is a "better" method or that everyone should be doing it. (Not implying that you were doing that, just a general "grinds my gears" comment).

    I agree. More than one way to "skin a cat" (not literally, I'm a cat lover).

    There isn't a "one size fits all" program for everyone. I do IF and eat Paleo but it's not for everyone. Some can do the '5-6 meals, every 2-3 hours" which just left me hungry, wanting more. To each their own and good luck to everyone, with whatever they choose.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,336 Member
    No I don't because when I do I have a hard time stopping and feel hungry all the time. I eat three meals a day usually 4-5 hours apart and a big snack at night if I have left over calories. In the end do what works for you to keep your hunger under control.
  • cocobeenie
    cocobeenie Posts: 98
    Yes, I eat six small meals about 2-3 hours apart. I'm originally a grazer so this works for me because I am cinstantly eating. You can scope my food diary to see how I usually do it.
  • hbrekkaas
    hbrekkaas Posts: 268 Member
    I eat every 2-3 hours. Sometimes I will skip my afternoon snack. If I don't eat that often I get headaches, naseous, and dizzy.
  • Teemo
    Teemo Posts: 338
    I eat every 2-3 hours because I want to stoke the metabolic fire.

    j/k, meal-timing is irrelevant. :laugh: I do two meals: The first of the day post-workout (in the evening) and the second and last before I go to bed. I've done it both ways. Having food around every 2-3 hours -- which, for those of us who work, essentially requires having food around 24/7 -- makes it far more likely and tempting to overeat.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories