Snacking or 3 big meals a day?!

Yikes!

Meal frequency has no effect on weight loss or metabolism but eating right does.

You are constantly thinking about food because you arent eating enough and ghrelin is elevated in your system.
This is your body telling you to eat.
This is me telling you to eat sensibly!
=D


http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/538381-in-place-of-a-road-map

PM me if you have any questions.

I have to agree with Helloitsdan. There is a lot of evidence to say that eating many smaller meals has such a small impact that it is nearly meaningless.

I personally plan on 3 meals per day and only eat snacks if i feel hungry, maybe an apple or a small handful of almonds. I do tend to eat smaller meals for lunch and breakfast and a bigger dinner. Evenings used to be my worst time for uncontrolled eating so it works best for me to have a larger, more filling meal at that time and take the nibbles out of the equation.

But essentially, you need to do what works for you and if you feel like 5 or 6 meals per day is too many, then cut back to the right number for you.

everyone refers to the "evidence" thats supports their own desires, you can look up and find research supporting any mentality you have, you can look up "research" that suggests the earth is still flat that doesnt make it true, look to the people who have had the best results, me and every athlete I work with supports the idea of nutrient timing and meal strategy. look beyond just losing fat

just because something makes you lose weight doesnt mean its good for you from an athletic stand-point, for example you can drop a few pounds by cutting sodium out of your diet and running a lot then you would lose a bunch of water weight, but does that mean its healthy...no

To me 400 cals is so pathetic that i have three meals a day, with one vegetable meal being the fourth meal. If I didn't do this I think I would die.

Trying to have six meals with only 200 cals in them would do me in. you can't even have an egg on toast for that, let alone another piece of toast with jam.

JMHO of course, but three small meals a day rather than six microscopic snacks a day.

everyone refers to the "evidence" thats supports their own desires, you can look up and find research supporting any mentality you have, you can look up "research" that suggests the earth is still flat that doesnt make it true, look to the people who have had the best results, me and every athlete I work with supports the idea of nutrient timing and meal strategy. look beyond just losing fat

just because something makes you lose weight doesnt mean its good for you from an athletic stand-point, for example you can drop a few pounds by cutting sodium out of your diet and running a lot then you would lose a bunch of water weight, but does that mean its healthy...no

What are we debating?

She doesnt eat enough to lose weight or support any type of training.
Unless of course shes obese II or III.
Obese II or III people have enough ATP in their system to generate energy for activity but only for short periods of time.
Afterwards they plateau.

Just some leisurely reading:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413096

BACKGROUND:

Although consumption of 3 meals/d is the most common pattern of eating in industrialized countries, a scientific rationale for this meal frequency with respect to optimal health is lacking. A diet with less meal frequency can improve the health and extend the lifespan of laboratory animals, but its effect on humans has never been tested

RESULTS:

Subjects who completed the study maintained their body weight within 2 kg of their initial weight throughout the 6-mo period. There were no significant effects of meal frequency on heart rate, body temperature, or most of the blood variables measured. However, when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet.

"We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656

CONCLUSIONS:

In the short term, meal frequency and a period of fasting have no major impact on energy intake or expenditure


And another detailed and referenced post here:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/529002-a-compliation-on-meal-frequency


CLIFFS:

Meal frequency should be tailored to personal preference and gym performance. There is no increase in diet induced thermogenesis (DIT/TEF) from increased meal frequency.

Regarding blood glucose levels, you can see good info on it here:

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

Pasting below however if you actually go to the site he's referenced the post with various links to support.

From leangains.com:

3. Myth: Eat small meals to keep blood sugar levels under control.


Truth

According to legions of diet and health "experts," eating small meals every so often will help you avoid hunger pangs, provide you with stable energy throughout the day and keep you mentally sharp. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, blood sugar is extremely well-regulated and maintained within a tight range in healthy people. It does not swing wildly up and down like a chimpanzee on meth and it doesn't plummet from going a few hours without food. Or even a full day without food. Or a week without food for that matter.

People seem to believe they will suffer severe hunger and mental impairment from not eating every so often. Consider for a second the evolutionary consequences for survival if this was true. Given that regular periods of fasting, even famine, was a natural part of our past, do you think we'd be here today if we were unable to function when obtaining food was most critical? I have seen healthy young males, bodybuilders nonetheless, complain of lethargy and mental haze if they didn't get to eat for a few hours. It's completely absurd. But I digress...

Maintaining blood sugar is of very high priority and we have developed efficient pathways that will make it happen even under extreme conditions. If you were to fast for 23 hrs and then go for a 90 min run at 70-75% VO2max, your blood sugar after the run would be identical to the same run performed in the fed state. It would take no less than three days or 84 hours of fasting to reach blood sugar levels low enough to affect your mental state; and this is temporary, as your brain adapts to the use of ketones. During 48 hours of fasting, or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range no measure of cognitive performance is negatively affected.

For more on blood sugar, read my review of Eat Stop Eat Expanded Edition, which includes a relevant excerpt. Also, keep in mind that the above cited studies are all performed under conditions that are much more extreme than the fasting protocol I, or Brad Pilon, recommends.

What about blood sugar and hunger? Blood sugar is one of many short-term feedback mechanisms used to regulate hunger and the notion which exists to say that low blood sugar may cause hunger is correct. Low just means lower range. This is subject to numerous confounders, such as your habitual diet, energy intake and genetics. Most importantly perhaps, it's subject to entrained meal patterns, regulated by ghrelin and other metabolic hormones. In essence, this means that blood sugar follows the meal pattern you are used to. This is relevant for those who fear blood sugar issues and hunger from regular periods of fasting, as it serves to explain why people can easily adapt to regular periods of fasting without negative effects.