3 meals a day versus snacking hypothesis

Options
Rompa_87
Rompa_87 Posts: 291 Member
in Food and Nutrition
If you read many fitness and nutrition forums and blogs or listen to many personal trainers then you will hear that eating 3 meals and 3 smaller snacks throughout the day burns weight and fat more efficiently than 3 main meals.

The theory is that small frequent snack keep the metabolism 'fired up' and constantly burning fat throughout the day while three bigger meals leads to a crash inbetween.

However, the science on this topic says otherwise. I have yet to find a scientific study that has supported the theory. The only evidence comes from testimonials and authority. The weakest form of evidence. There is however evidence that supports there is no difference between eating 3 meals a day and 3 meals and 3 snacks so long as the energy intake is held constant. That is, eating a calorie restricted diet works equally effectively regardless of meal frequency.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3592618

Now this isn't to say that everyone should abandon 6 small meals for 3 larger ones. You should continue with whatever is more convenient or appropriate to your schedule as there is no difference or harm in either meal frequency. If you are in a job where you cannot snack frequently this is to inform you that you are not any worse off because of it.

Also if anyone has found 'scientific peer reviewed journal articles' that support 6 meals over 3, then please post them here as well.

Replies

  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member
    Options
    ^ Should be a sticky IMO. good post OP.
  • adhillman01
    adhillman01 Posts: 206
    Options
    I don't necessarily disagree with you, but both of those studies were extremely small. The first one was 16 subjects, the second one 8 subjects. Puts their results into question.
  • ajbeans
    ajbeans Posts: 2,857 Member
    Options
    I haven't seen a difference in my weight loss whether I'm snacking or sticking with 2 or 3 larger meals per day. But personally I *feel* better when I snack between meals. It keeps my energy level a bit higher, I assume because it prevents dips in blood sugar. And it prevents the "ZOMG I'm so hungry now I need to eat a bunch of empty carbs" binge that I tend to do if I wait too long to eat.
  • HMonsterX
    HMonsterX Posts: 3,000 Member
    Options
    I don't necessarily disagree with you, but both of those studies were extremely small. The first one was 16 subjects, the second one 8 subjects. Puts their results into question.

    Can you show a study that proved that regular eating "boosts" your metabolism at all? These may be small, but it's better than the non-existant research showing regular eating boosts metabolism..
  • Rompa_87
    Rompa_87 Posts: 291 Member
    Options
    Well there has been a more recent meta-analysis.

    It basically states that there is limited support for more frequent meals to have a positive influence on LDL and insulin but no real evidence of improvement on energy expenditure or body composition in sedentary people.

    There is still also a gap of the effects meal frequency has on athletic populations. However, given the current evidence (non-existant) of the benefits of increased meal frequency and weight loss it is fairly safe to conclude that you are not hurting yourself from eating three larger meals instead.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070624/
  • Lozze
    Lozze Posts: 1,917 Member
    Options
    I've done both. Lost weight on both. Put it back on with three big meals as it got too hard. Have to wait and see for the 3 + 3. I don't care about science. I'm learning what works with my body.
  • Rae6503
    Rae6503 Posts: 6,294 Member
    Options
    bump

Categories