Spreading out meals throughout the day...

Options
Hi Everyone,

I have a question about spreading out snacks and meals throughout the day. I'm currently in Spain where the culture eats a bit differently than the U.S. And in the summer, when the sun doesn't go down until 9:30 at night, it makes the day much longer. At the moment, I'm exercising 6 days a week-- some days I do very long power walks and other days I do walks, strength and C25K. I'm attempting to eat between the mid-1600 and the mid-1700s on normal days, 1500 on one low day a week and 1900 on a high day. I'm 5'4 and have about 10ish pounds to lose before I hit my first goal of 135 (Currently i'm between 145-146).

Here's my main question: I usually eat breakfast around 8, exercise, eat lunch between noon-2pm and then I don't eat dinner until about 8:30. Which means I have a fairly large chunk of time between lunch and dinner to eat snacks. How should I be spacing out those snacks so that a) my metabolism stays revved up and b) I don't want to eat my own leg by dinnertime?

Thanks!
«1

Replies

  • MustBeTheRows
    MustBeTheRows Posts: 377 Member
    Options
    Meal frequency does not effect metabolism.
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Options
    Meal frequency does not effect metabolism.

    Kaching.
  • Mercenary1914
    Mercenary1914 Posts: 1,087 Member
    Options
    Meal frequency does not effect metabolism.

    He is right...however, Meal frequency can help prevent over eating and boost mood....not metabolim

    I am a wild bear if I do not eat every 2.5 to 3 hours...Eating every 2.5 to 3 hours help keeps me sane and it prevents me from over eating and over loading on carbs...

    EDIT to ADD...Simply Eating more and moving more...will boost metabolism...Not timing
  • stylistchik
    stylistchik Posts: 1,436 Member
    Options
    3-ish hours between eating keeps me from getting hungry enough to over-eat at mealtime, so maybe something around 4-5 pm?
  • AmyM713
    AmyM713 Posts: 594 Member
    Options
    Meal frequency does not effect metabolism.

    He is right...however, Meal frequency can help prevent over eating and boost mood....not metabolim

    I am a wild bear if I do not eat every 2.5 to 3 hours...Eating every 2.5 to 3 hours help keeps me sane and it prevents me from over eating and over loading on carbs...

    EDIT to ADD...Simply Eating more and moving more...will boost metabolism...Not timing

    ^this I try to eat every 2 to 3 hours myself, and it doesn't have to be a huge snack just something filling to get you to the next meal time. I find an ounce of almonds helps calm hunger.
  • spaingirl2011
    spaingirl2011 Posts: 763 Member
    Options
    Meal frequency does not effect metabolism.

    He is right...however, Meal frequency can help prevent over eating and boost mood....not metabolim

    I am a wild bear if I do not eat every 2.5 to 3 hours...Eating every 2.5 to 3 hours help keeps me sane and it prevents me from over eating and over loading on carbs...

    EDIT to ADD...Simply Eating more and moving more...will boost metabolism...Not timing

    Thanks for clarifying. To the other gentlemen who responded, please keep in mind that there's conflicting information about this on the internet. Simply stating eating smaller meals at shorter intervals doesn't *affect* metabolism-- doesn't help me or anyone else who visits this thread.
  • spaingirl2011
    spaingirl2011 Posts: 763 Member
    Options
    Meal frequency does not effect metabolism.

    He is right...however, Meal frequency can help prevent over eating and boost mood....not metabolim

    I am a wild bear if I do not eat every 2.5 to 3 hours...Eating every 2.5 to 3 hours help keeps me sane and it prevents me from over eating and over loading on carbs...

    EDIT to ADD...Simply Eating more and moving more...will boost metabolism...Not timing

    ^this I try to eat every 2 to 3 hours myself, and it doesn't have to be a huge snack just something filling to get you to the next meal time. I find an ounce of almonds helps calm hunger.

    Thanks! It's looking like 2-3 hours is what works for most people. I should add that because I live in a large city, I walk everywhere, which, even with two small snacks in that gap between lunch and dinner, I'm still STARVING (to the point where I consider not eating my healthy dinner and going out to get pizza) by dinnertime.
  • BurtHuttz
    BurtHuttz Posts: 3,653 Member
    Options
    It is true that meal frequency doesn't impact metabolism. I eat a whole pig once a week, and it works just fine for me. I also once knew this girl in high school who ate only once annually at a fabulous banquet.

    Now, on to a productive discussion of the OP's question; because you live in Spain, do you have to eat dinner at 8:00pm? Can you not structure something that works for you?

    What about "snacks" that aren't traditionally snacks, such as a turkey/cheese sandwich?

    On many days in your diary it appears that you're eating a significant caloric deficit - - sorry, you're gonna want to gnaw your leg off those days. Also, it seems that much of your eating is in "snacks" - say, 800 calories to the 1000 calories for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

    If you want to graze all day you can dispense with the concept of three square meals and come up with a diet based on grazing. If not, you'll be needing to eat more substantial meals to get you through.
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Options
    Meal frequency does not effect metabolism.

    He is right...however, Meal frequency can help prevent over eating and boost mood....not metabolim

    I am a wild bear if I do not eat every 2.5 to 3 hours...Eating every 2.5 to 3 hours help keeps me sane and it prevents me from over eating and over loading on carbs...

    EDIT to ADD...Simply Eating more and moving more...will boost metabolism...Not timing

    Thanks for clarifying. To the other gentlemen who responded, please keep in mind that there's conflicting information about this on the internet. Simply stating eating smaller meals at shorter intervals doesn't *affect* metabolism-- doesn't help me or anyone else who visits this thread.
    Indeed there is, which is why the response was so short and to the point :) The regular eating myth runs on the basis that your metabolism slows down or even stops if you haven't eaten recently - same as people saying you need breakfast to kick start it - but, if it ever truly stops, you're dead.
  • spaingirl2011
    spaingirl2011 Posts: 763 Member
    Options
    It is true that meal frequency doesn't impact metabolism. I eat a whole pig once a week, and it works just fine for me. I also once knew this girl in high school who ate only once annually at a fabulous banquet.

    Now, on to a productive discussion of the OP's question; because you live in Spain, do you have to eat dinner at 8:00pm? Can you not structure something that works for you?

    What about "snacks" that aren't traditionally snacks, such as a turkey/cheese sandwich?

    On many days in your diary it appears that you're eating a significant caloric deficit - - sorry, you're gonna want to gnaw your leg off those days. Also, it seems that much of your eating is in "snacks" - say, 800 calories to the 1000 calories for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

    If you want to graze all day you can dispense with the concept of three square meals and come up with a diet based on grazing. If not, you'll be needing to eat more substantial meals to get you through.

    Yeah, one of the main problems that I've had since moving here (and I'll only be here for another month) is that my life here is far more active than my life in the U.S. I have a fitbit so I don't even add the calories I burn on a daily basis just walking to the store or to the archive or around the city. I'm willing to suspect my deficit is much higher (then again, I don't know how much to trust my fitbit for calories burned, either, I could be burning less than it says).

    I'm trying to figure out how to account for all of that activity an to eat regularly enough so that I don't eat 50 churros with chocolate! Ha!
  • spaingirl2011
    spaingirl2011 Posts: 763 Member
    Options
    Meal frequency does not effect metabolism.

    He is right...however, Meal frequency can help prevent over eating and boost mood....not metabolim

    I am a wild bear if I do not eat every 2.5 to 3 hours...Eating every 2.5 to 3 hours help keeps me sane and it prevents me from over eating and over loading on carbs...

    EDIT to ADD...Simply Eating more and moving more...will boost metabolism...Not timing

    Thanks for clarifying. To the other gentlemen who responded, please keep in mind that there's conflicting information about this on the internet. Simply stating eating smaller meals at shorter intervals doesn't *affect* metabolism-- doesn't help me or anyone else who visits this thread.
    Indeed there is, which is why the response was so short and to the point :) The regular eating myth runs on the basis that your metabolism slows down or even stops if you haven't eaten recently - same as people saying you need breakfast to kick start it - but, if it ever truly stops, you're dead.

    I appreciate that you took the time to answer my post, but knowing more would help me understand. Simply stating it just sounds like an opinion. Thanks, though, for clarifying it now!
  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member
    Options
    Thanks for clarifying. To the other gentlemen who responded, please keep in mind that there's conflicting information about this on the internet. Simply stating eating smaller meals at shorter intervals doesn't *affect* metabolism-- doesn't help me or anyone else who visits this thread.

    Please read this, not because I wrote it, but because it is referenced to sites that contain peer-reviewed research that refutes the idea of meal frequency boosting thermic effect of feeding.

    www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/529002-a-compliation-on-meal-frequency

    When you go to this thread, please take a look at the attached sites and the attached research.
  • spaingirl2011
    spaingirl2011 Posts: 763 Member
    Options
    Thanks for clarifying. To the other gentlemen who responded, please keep in mind that there's conflicting information about this on the internet. Simply stating eating smaller meals at shorter intervals doesn't *affect* metabolism-- doesn't help me or anyone else who visits this thread.

    Please read this, not because I wrote it, but because it is referenced to sites that contain peer-reviewed research that refutes the idea of meal frequency boosting thermic effect of feeding.

    www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/529002-a-compliation-on-meal-frequency

    When you go to this thread, please take a look at the attached sites and the attached research.

    Thanks for the info!
  • BurtHuttz
    BurtHuttz Posts: 3,653 Member
    Options
    It sounds more and more like you just need to eat more. I *will* over-eat if I let myself get too hungry, so, in a manner of speaking, if I eat more, I'll eat less; that's been very effective for my weight loss.

    Whether it's meals or snacks, larger or more frequent, you just need to keep fueled up. So find those times when you can make it happen and shim the spaces with snacks.

    As to how you can logistically do that if you're walking around all the time? That I think we need to leave up to you . . . but I'm sure all the standards non-perishables will work - beef jerky, trail mix, etc.
  • holligo_lightly
    Options
    I also once knew this girl in high school who ate only once annually at a fabulous banquet.


    WHAT. not possible!
  • spaingirl2011
    spaingirl2011 Posts: 763 Member
    Options
    It sounds more and more like you just need to eat more. I *will* over-eat if I let myself get too hungry, so, in a manner of speaking, if I eat more, I'll eat less; that's been very effective for my weight loss.

    Whether it's meals or snacks, larger or more frequent, you just need to keep fueled up. So find those times when you can make it happen and shim the spaces with snacks.

    As to how you can logistically do that if you're walking around all the time? That I think we need to leave up to you . . . but I'm sure all the standards non-perishables will work - beef jerky, trail mix, etc.

    You're probably right-- I should eat more ... (Unfortunately Spain is not known for granola. There lots of fatty HAM. Nooot so much granola). Though maybe I'll look into eating foods that are a little more calorically intensified. low-fat milk rather than skim, whole wheat bread that's whole wheat bread *sized* (rather than the little pipsqueak pieces I'm eating).

    I appreciate your help!
  • BurtHuttz
    BurtHuttz Posts: 3,653 Member
    Options
    Spaingirl - please do, and drop me a note and let me know how it goes!


    WHAT. not possible!
    Yes, I was just being silly; people were talking crazy talk. If quantum entanglement is possible, then meal frequency certainly has, in some manner, a relationship to metabolism.
  • spaingirl2011
    spaingirl2011 Posts: 763 Member
    Options
    Spaingirl - please do, and drop me a note and let me know how it goes!

    So I changed my information on the plan manager where the average of what I was initially aiming for is now the bare minimum. I'm a little nervous because it sounds like a lot of food, but I will succeed! And who knows, maybe this will help my stalled weight loss! Thanks again!
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,720 Member
    Options
    Thanks for clarifying. To the other gentlemen who responded, please keep in mind that there's conflicting information about this on the internet. Simply stating eating smaller meals at shorter intervals doesn't *affect* metabolism-- doesn't help me or anyone else who visits this thread.
    The conflict is with information made from people trying to sell you their "diet" plan. Medically and scientifically speaking there really isn't a metabolic advantage to meal frequency.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer/Group Fitness Instructor
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition



    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998
    Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.Links
    Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.

    Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR.
    Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
    A study was conducted to investigate whether there is a diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization in man and how this is affected by meal frequency to explain possible consequences of meal frequency for body weight regulation. When the daily energy intake is consumed in a small number of large meals, there is an increased chance to become overweight, possibly by an elevated lipogenesis (fat synthesis and accumulation) or storage of energy after the meal. Thirteen subjects, two males and eleven females, were fed to energy balance in two meals per day (gorging pattern) and seven meals per day (nibbling pattern) over 2-day intervals. On the second day on each feeding regimen, the diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization was calculated from simultaneous measurements of oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production and urinary nitrogen excretion over 3 h intervals in a respiration chamber. A gorging pattern of energy intake resulted in a stronger diurnal periodicity of nutrient utilization, compared to a nibbling pattern. However, there were no consequences for the total 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) of the two feeding patterns (5.57 +/- 0.16 kJ/min for the gorging pattern; 5.44 +/- 0.18 kJ/min for the nibbling pattern). Concerning the periodicity of nutrient utilization, protein oxidation during the day did not change between the two feeding patterns. In the gorging pattern, carbohydrate oxidation was significantly elevated during the interval following the first meal (ie from 1200 h to 1500 h, P less than 0.01) and the second meal (ie from 1800 h to 2100 h, P less than 0.05). The decreased rate of carbohydrate oxidation observed during the fasting period (from rising in the morning until the first meal at 1200 h), was compensated by an increased fat oxidation from 0900 to 1200 h to cover energy needs. In the nibbling pattern, carbohydrate and fat oxidation remained relatively constant during the active hours of the day.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656
    Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.Links
    Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter.

    Taylor MA, Garrow JS.
    Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, King's College London, London, UK.
    OBJECTIVE: To test if a diet of 4.2 MJ/24 h as six isocaloric meals would result in a lower subsequent energy intake, or greater energy output than (a) 4.2 MJ/24 h as two isocaloric meals or (b) a morning fast followed by free access to food. DESIGN: Subjects were confined to the Metabolic Unit from 19:00 h on day 1 to 09:30 h on day 6. Each day they had a fixed diet providing 4.2 MJ with three pairs of meal patterns which were offered in random sequence. They were: six meals vs two meals without access to additional foods (6vs2), or six meals vs 2 meals with access to additional food (6+vs2+), or six meals vs four meals (6+vsAMFAST). In the AMFAST condition the first two meals of the day were omitted to reduce daily intake to 2.8 MJ and to create a morning fast, but additional food was accessible thereafter. Patients were confined in the chamber calorimeter from 19:00 h on day 2 until 09:00 h on day 4, and then from 19:00 h on day 4 to 09:00 h on day 6. The order in which each meal pattern was offered was balanced over time. MEASUREMENTS: Energy expenditure (chamber calorimetry), spontaneous activity (video) and energy intake (where additional foods were available) during the final 24 h of each dietary component. SUBJECTS: Ten (6vs2), eight (6+vs2+) and eight (6+vsAMFAST) women were recruited who had a BMI of greater than 25 kg/m2. RESULTS: From experiment 6vs2 the difference between energy expenditure with six meals (10.00 MJ) and two meals (9.96 MJ) was not significant (P=0.88). Energy expenditure between 23:00 h and 08:00 h ('night') was, however, significantly higher (P=0.02) with two meals (9.12 MJ/24 h) compared with six meals (8.34 MJ/24 h). The pattern of spontaneous physical activity did not differ significantly between these two meal patterns (P>0.05). Total energy intake was affected by neither meal frequency in experiment 6+vs2+ (10.75 MJ with six, 11.08 MJ with two; P=0.58) nor a morning fast in experiment 6+vsAMFAST (8.55 MJ/24 h with six, 7.60 MJ with AMFAST; P=0.40). The total diet of subjects who had a morning fast tended to have a lower percentage of total energy from carbohydrate (40%) than when they had six meals per 24 h (49%) (P=0.05). Subsequent energy balance was affected by neither meal frequency (6vs2; P=0.88, 6+vs2+; P=0.50) nor a morning fast (P=0.18). CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, meal frequency and a period of fasting have no major impact on energy intake or expenditure but energy expenditure is delayed with a lower meal frequency compared with a higher meal frequency. This might be attributed to the thermogenic effect of food continuing into the night when a later, larger meal is given. A morning fast resulted in a diet which tended to have a lower percentage of energy from carbohydrate than with no fast.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053311
    Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21. Epub 2007 Dec 6. Links
    Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency.

    Smeets AJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS.
    Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. astrid.smeets@hb.unimaas.nl
    A gorging pattern of food intake has been shown to enhance lipogenesis and increase body weight, which may be due to large fluctuations in storage and mobilisation of nutrients. In a state of energy balance, increasing meal frequency, and thereby decreasing inter-meal interval, may prevent large metabolic fluctuations. Our aim was to study the effect of the inter-meal interval by dividing energy intake over two or three meals on energy expenditure, substrate oxidation and 24 h satiety, in healthy, normal-weight women in a state of energy balance. The study was a randomised crossover design with two experimental conditions. During the two experimental conditions subjects (fourteen normal-weight women, aged 24.4 (SD 7.1) years, underwent 36 h sessions in energy balance in a respiration chamber for measurements of energy expenditure and substrate oxidation. The subjects were given two (breakfast, dinner) or three (breakfast, lunch, dinner) meals per d. We chose to omit lunch in the two meals condition, because this resulted in a marked difference in inter-meal-interval after breakfast (8.5 h v. 4 h). Eating three meals compared with two meals had no effects on 24 h energy expenditure, diet-induced thermogenesis, activity-induced energy expenditure and sleeping metabolic rate. Eating three meals compared with two meals increased 24 h fat oxidation, but decreased the amount of fat oxidised from the breakfast. The same amount of energy divided over three meals compared with over two meals increased satiety feelings over 24 h. In healthy, normal-weight women, decreasing the inter-meal interval sustains satiety, particularly during the day, and sustains fat oxidation, particularly during the night.
    PMID: 18053311 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
    Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70. Links
    Meal frequency and energy balance.

    Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM.
    INSERM U341, Hotel Dieu de Paris, France.
    Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.
    PMID: 9155494 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
  • vim_n_vigor
    vim_n_vigor Posts: 4,089 Member
    Options
    For me, I eat about half of my calories throughout the day with most of them at breakfast and lunch - about 300-400 at breakfast, 200-300 for morning snack, 400-500 for lunch, maybe 50-100 in the afternoon, I usually leave 600-800 calories for dinner and a snack before bedtime. This leaves me a very filling dinner and a snack before bed. I sleep better this way and feel the most satisfied. Good luck!