Six meals a day as good as Three!

[Laver]

Ref: http://www.intense-workout.com/small_meals.html

When it comes to setting up your weight loss or muscle building diet and figuring out how many meals you should eat per day, there's 1 common tip that you've definitely heard before.

And that tip is that you should eat 5 or 6 small meals per day (once every 2-3 hours) instead of the more typical diet setup of 3 large meals.

The supposed reasoning for this magical meal frequency is that it will "speed up your metabolism" and cause all sorts of other benefits that will directly cause weight loss to be easier, better and faster. Plus, eating like this would also help prevent fat gain and help with building muscle.

And you probably also heard that not eating 5-6 smaller meals would somehow slow down your metabolism or cause fat gain or do all kinds of other things that would negatively impact your ability to lose fat or build muscle. Right?

Well, here's a funny thing about that. It's all bullshit. Every single word of it.

And that's scientifically proven bullshit, I might add.

I kid you not. A ton of studies and research have been done over the last couple of years looking specifically at meal frequency and whether or not scheduling your meals a certain way has more benefits than other ways. The results? There is absolutely nothing showing any sort of significant benefit whatsoever as far as "speeding up your metabolism" or any similar voodoo goes.

As long as your total calorie and nutrient intake is what it needs to be at the end of the day, how many meals you eat or how frequently you eat them really doesn't matter at all. And the research proves it.

It doesn't matter if you ate 5-6 small meals or 3-4 big ones. Metabolisms didn't magically speed up or slow down. Fat wasn't gained or lost any faster or easier. Muscle wasn't built any differently. At the end of the day, it just doesn't matter. Eat frequently or infrequently, eat big meals or small meals... it doesn't make any difference whatsoever with all else (like total calorie intake) being equal.

So, if you are someone who believed this (don't feel bad, I did too, and some of the articles I wrote for this site 10 years ago still contain that recommendation), and you have been forced into eating every 2-3 hours even though it's inconvenient for you, or eating 5-6 small meals per day even though you'd prefer to eat 3-4 bigger ones, or you have in some way adjusted your diet or your life to get benefits that you now know don't actually exist... stop.

It won't directly hurt your results in any way. You'll still lose fat just the same. You'll still build muscle just the same. You'll still get your body to do whatever you want it to do just the same. It's now a scientifically proven fact.

So then, how many meals SHOULD we eat a day?

However, before you make any changes to your diet, you may have noticed my use of the word "directly" in the paragraph above. And the reason for that is because there are some indirect effects a certain meal frequency can have on certain people. Let me explain...

Let's say you are a woman who is looking to lose a few pounds. Based on your current height/weight, activity level and genetics, it's very possible that your calorie intake will need to be between 1200 - 2000 calories per day.

Now, let's say you are a man looking to build muscle. Based on your current height/weight, activity level and genetics, it's very possible that your calorie intake will need to be between 3000 - 4000 calories per day.

Now, if the woman in our first example (who has a daily calorie intake between 1200-2000) tried to eat 6 small meals per day, each meal would contain between 200-300 calories. That's NOTHING. You'll never feel full. You'll never feel satisfied. You'll always be hungry. You'll always be checking the clock waiting for the next "meal" to come. When your calorie intake is fairly low (which is typical for many women of average or below average size, and some smaller men too), trying to eat 5-6 meals a day is borderline torture.

On the other hand, let's look at the guy in our second example. With a daily calorie intake between 3000-4000, trying to eat 6 small meals a day would result in 500-600 calorie meals, which sounds perfect. For someone with a higher calorie intake, a higher meal frequency makes sense. Especially when you consider what would happen if they tried to eat only 3 meals a day. Each meal would be over 1000 calories each, and that's pretty crazy/hard to actually pull off on a daily basis without exploding.

So, as you can see, depending on your calorie intake (which is dependant on your gender, height, weight, activity level, genetics and goals), eating 5-6 small meals per day CAN be the right thing to do for some. For others, it would just cause too many tiny meals that would drive most people insane (and probably lead to them eating when they shouldn't).

Similarly, 3-4 larger meals might be perfect for some, but gut-bustingly hard for others.

And for the people who have an average calorie intake that's right in the middle (not too high, not too low), it's really just a matter of personal preference and doing what's easier and more convenient for you. If that's 5-6 small meals or 3-4 bigger ones, that's totally up to you.

However, no matter what your meal frequency ends up being in any of the above cases, it's not going to make any difference in terms of the various voodoo I mentioned earlier. It won't speed up or slow down your metabolism. It won't cause you to lose fat or build muscle any slower.

The only thing you need to care about when it comes to how many meals to eat per day is doing whatever is more likely for you to stick to comfortably. You know, whatever fits your personal eating preferences and life.

Because in the end, setting up a proper diet that contains the right total amount of calories and nutrients and THEN sticking to it is all that truly matters. So, how ever many meals will make you more likely to stick to your diet... THAT'S how many meals you should eat a day.

[teamfatboy]

So who IS the author ? A brief look at the website didn't fling up a name.

[rose]

The unnamed author. I'd like to read his book. Anyone feel like paying the $10 and sharing the file? :pfft: The Intense Workout's Muscle Building Program.

[teamfatboy]

Hmmm... According to the blurb, it's a

is a fully downloadable 44 page guide to every single aspect of building muscle. It's a complete explanation of exactly what is required for the human body to build muscle, and exactly what you need to do to make it happen.

My 2c worth, s/he must be using really, really, really small type to get all that, along with evidence, into 44 pages!

[rose]

I'm picking male after having a good look at the website.

I'm in two minds about the advice re eating less frequently, namely because the author cites no studies. The studies the author claims disprove the eating frequently thing, who were they conducted on, under what circumstances, etc etc. Is the author cherry picking results to support this opinion piece? Who knows, the author doesn't cite anything.

Secondly, because men, generally speaking, rarely have a handle on how whacky female hormones affect fat loss. Meal frequency can be about hormone manipulation too. So while it might not matter for some, I'd argue that for many women, smaller meals more frequently is going to be the better option.

I suppose the author covers their arse by noting you should eat how ever many meals will make you more likely to stick to your diet.

It's really quite a pointless article.

[teamfatboy]

men, generally speaking, rarely have a handle on how whacky female hormones affect fat loss. Meal frequency can be about hormone manipulation too. So while it might not matter for some, I'd argue that for many women, smaller meals more frequently is going to be the better option.

Not just for women - although the two genders' hormone systems are different, I've found that manipulating my diet can affect a lot of things (pure speculation, but I'm thinking things like serotonin levels eg)

I suppose the author covers their arse by noting you should eat how ever many meals will make you more likely to stick to your diet.

That was my conclusion - the only piece of common sense I found could be distilled down to "do what works best for you".

It's really quite a pointless article.

Oh, I dunno, it contributes to the annals of bro'science.... :grin:

[ThePman]

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/resear ... eview.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle ... gains.html

[rose]

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

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/meal-frequency-and-mass-gains.html

Mass gain and metabolic advantage, supporting the website authors claims sure, but my point about him not citing anything stands. In my opinion, any credible source of information would cite the studies used to back up their claims. If it wasn't credible information, how many people would read and repeat it without any further thought etc.

A quick skim read said neither of those touch on whacky female hormones :grin:

And this:

A 120 lb female may have a daily food intake of 1200 calories/day or less on a diet.

Is just scary. 1200 calories or less :shock: Unless they're bedridden or a midget whale, eating disorder anyone? :pfft:

[ThePman]

Lyle didn't reference research? Are you kidding me?

The meal frequency research is pretty compelling in the "doesn't matter" department*

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053311

* Physiologically. Psychological elements of satiety and adherence are a different matter.

[Thunderhorse]

Lyle didn't reference research? Are you kidding me?

The meal frequency research is pretty compelling in the "doesn't matter" department*

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053311

* Physiologically. Psychological elements of satiety and adherence are a different matter.

Interesting, I always felt that meal frequency didn't matter. I think that "you can only digest x grams of protein per meal" thing is bullshit too.

[rose]

Lyle didn't reference research? Are you kidding me?

Ummm, I meant the article from the OP? Heh.

[ThePman]

Interesting, I always felt that meal frequency didn't matter.

It matters acutely, in that there are differences in what happens right after you eat (post-prandial) vs. between meals (post-absorptive). That's also the source of most of the "insulin is anabolic!!!" tomfoolery.

But that's only considering slices of time. Averaged out that over 24 hours, there's no net difference. If you eat more frequently, you get a little bump to metabolism at the cost of fat oxidation post-feeding. If you eat less frequently, you get more fat oxidation between meals at the cost of a slightly lower metabolic rate.

Over the course of the entire day, it turns out the exact same for a set number of calories. There are psychological reasons, maybe, in that eating often or grazing might keep you feeling fuller, but it's not actually "stoking the metabolic furnace" or any of that.

I think that "you can only digest x grams of protein per meal" thing is bullshit too.

It is, not the least of which due to the fact that food sits in the gut and digests over time. If you eat 100g of protein in one sitting, it creates a bolus in the gut and releases amino acids into your blood over the next few hours.

Getting into rates of digestion and amino oxidation is another matter, but realistically most of this wanking boils down to "it just doesn't matter".

[rose]

"it just doesn't matter".

Agreed. I just question the unnamed "guru" who cites no references. The original article was crap, not the message.

[ThePman]

"it just doesn't matter".

Agreed. I just question the unnamed "guru" who cites no references. The article was crap, not the message.

You should know I have no problems with that

[rose]

"it just doesn't matter".

Agreed. I just question the unnamed "guru" who cites no references. The article was crap, not the message.

You should know I have no problems with that

Heh! :doh:

But that's only considering slices of time. Averaged out that over 24 hours, there's no net difference. If you eat more frequently, you get a little bump to metabolism at the cost of fat oxidation post-feeding. If you eat less frequently, you get more fat oxidation between meals at the cost of a slightly lower metabolic rate.

I guess my tangent re whacky female hormones was along the lines of how eating smaller meals more frequently might or might not affect hormones vs eating larger meals less frequently, specifically for women (and men) who might be estrogen dominant. Lots of foods contain compounds that affect estrogen production. So I wondered whether smaller more frequent vs larger less frequent, might have an affect on this. Do you know of any studies that have looked into it?

[Thunderhorse]

It is, not the least of which due to the fact that food sits in the gut and digests over time. If you eat 100g of protein in one sitting, it creates a bolus in the gut and releases amino acids into your blood over the next few hours.

Getting into rates of digestion and amino oxidation is another matter, but realistically most of this wanking boils down to "it just doesn't matter".

Yeah, interesting. Thanks for the information.

[ThePman]

I guess my tangent re whacky female hormones was along the lines of how eating smaller meals more frequently might or might not affect hormones vs eating larger meals less frequently, specifically for women (and men) who might be estrogen dominant. Lots of foods contain compounds that affect estrogen production. So I wondered whether smaller more frequent vs larger less frequent, might have an affect on this. Do you know of any studies that have looked into it?

Nothing I've ever seen. Which doesn't mean there is no such thing, mind you.

It wouldn't hurt a check on Pubmed, just for curiosity's sake.