• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

conorvansmack

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2004
5,041
0
76
I've been splitting up my eating into 5 - 6 meals per day. I have trouble doing this at work because of breaks and other stuff, but my biggest problem is that I'm not hungry!

I drink a shake on the way to work in the morning around 8:00. I've been trying to eat a snack (yogurt or cottage cheese) around 10:00, and then I have lunch around noon (sandwich, pretzels, fruit). I'm usually not hungry around 10, but it tides me over until lunch. After lunch, usually around 3:00 or 4:00 I get hungry again and eat some cottage cheese, vegetables/fruit, and/or crackers.

I haven't used fitday or daily plate because I don't really have the time for it at work. I'm trying to keep my metabolism up with more frequent, smaller meals. Should I eat even when I'm not hungry?
 

Megatomic

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
20,127
6
81
If you are eating 5 or 6 small meals a day and are relatively active you should be feeling hungry every 2 or 3 hours. I know I am famished every 3 hours, but I get an extreme amount of exercise and my job is fairly active.

How physically active are you? Perhaps you are overfeeding yourself.
 

KoolDrew

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
10,226
7
81
I have trouble doing this at work

Then don't worry about it. The best reason to eat many small meals a day is to make it easier to stick to your diet by not letting yourself get hungry. If you have no trouble sticking to a diet and don't end up overeating with less meals and it's more convenient, then do that.

The whole idea that 5-6 small meals a day will boost your metabolism is pure BS.

I haven't used fitday or daily plate because I don't really have the time for it at work.

I highly recommend you try to find time. In the end weight loss is all about calories in vs. calories out. The best way to ensure you're getting the right amount of calories is by tracking. It may seem like an inconvenience at first, but it'll make dieting a lot easier and it will get quicker and easier over time. Protein intake is very important as well. I don't know your currenyt stats, but if you're not "fat" then just have 1g of protein per pound of bodyweight. If you think you are, have 1g per pound lean body mass.
 

Megatomic

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
20,127
6
81
Originally posted by: KoolDrew
The whole idea that 5-6 small meals a day will boost your metabolism is pure BS.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I've read just the opposite in so many different books, magazines, and websites that it can't be some trendy fad. Even my triathlon training books encourage eating many small meals a day to boost energy levels.
 

spamsk8r

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2001
1,787
0
76
Originally posted by: Megatomic
Originally posted by: KoolDrew
The whole idea that 5-6 small meals a day will boost your metabolism is pure BS.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I've read just the opposite in so many different books, magazines, and websites that it can't be some trendy fad. Even my triathlon training books encourage eating many small meals a day to boost energy levels.

Nope. It's not supported by any research, and is refuted by quite a bit (don't have any links handy, but I've seen it myself).

I've read from so many different books, magazines, and websites that eating fat makes you fat, and that I should eat 6-11 servings of grains a day, but it doesn't make either of those statements true.
 

Megatomic

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
20,127
6
81
Hmm, well it's worked for me pretty well - I've gone from about 280 pounds to 165 pounds since 2006. But the key is that the meals have to be SMALL, not full size meals like you'd eat if you were only eating 3 times per day.
 

KoolDrew

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
10,226
7
81
Originally posted by: Megatomic
Hmm, well it's worked for me pretty well - I've gone from about 280 pounds to 165 pounds since 2006. But the key is that the meals have to be SMALL, not full size meals like you'd eat if you were only eating 3 times per day.

Newsflash - you lost weight because you ate less, not because you ate more meals.
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,483
32
81
Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Originally posted by: Megatomic
Hmm, well it's worked for me pretty well - I've gone from about 280 pounds to 165 pounds since 2006. But the key is that the meals have to be SMALL, not full size meals like you'd eat if you were only eating 3 times per day.

Newsflash - you lost weight because you ate less, not because you ate more meals.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner, ladies and gents. Also, eating more frequently may help you have a more regular flow of energy, therefore that's why triathlon books would say it boosts energy levels. You don't have the blood sugar crash or the somatostatin surge like you might if you ate larger meals (depending on your body).
 

YetioDoom

Platinum Member
Dec 12, 2001
2,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Megatomic
Originally posted by: KoolDrew
The whole idea that 5-6 small meals a day will boost your metabolism is pure BS.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I've read just the opposite in so many different books, magazines, and websites that it can't be some trendy fad. Even my triathlon training books encourage eating many small meals a day to boost energy levels.

NOT the same thing.

 

Megatomic

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
20,127
6
81
We could probably do this all day long back and forth, but I present my first lame google search for your reading pleasure. So rather than thump your chests in victory show me something to back your stances up.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I think that research shows some mild gain to increased meals but it is absolutely no panacea and I side with those who think it's overblown. Less overall food, not frequency of meals, will make or break a diet or exercise approach. For the most part, your body doesn't give a damn if it's fed 500 calories every 6 hours or 250 every 3 hours. It's not like the thing is a car with either an empty or not-empty gas tank; food can take many, many hours to digest and stores of glycogen, fat, and transient protein ensure that your body is basically running on what it's getting over multiple hours or a day not these short tiny calorie bursts.

I find many people, particularly novices, will obsess endlessly over minutiae of diets, probably from being overloaded with too much pointless information from magazines and elsewhere. The industry benefits from making this all seem complex so that we'll read/buy more crap.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Megatomic
We could probably do this all day long back and forth, but I present my first lame google search for your reading pleasure. So rather than thump your chests in victory show me something to back your stances up.
The first three links were all hearsay and actually didn't quantify a single lick of evidence as to how 3 vs 6 will impact metabolism. That's kind of what somebody was getting at in the above, that it's something we constantly hear about but don't really understand the underpinnings of.

 

Megatomic

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
20,127
6
81
You may be right Skoorb. But like I said, it was just a lame google search. I remember a few years ago when all the experts were saying that eggs were bad for you. Then they all recanted. This may be the same sort of scenario.

But I'd still like to see some links contradictory to eating 5-6 meals/day for increased metabolism.
 

KoolDrew

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
10,226
7
81
Effects of meal frequency on energy utilization in rats.

Hill JO, Anderson JC, Lin D, Yakubu F.

Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232.

The effects of differences in meal frequency on body weight, body composition, and energy expenditure were studied in mildly food-restricted male rats. Two groups were fed approximately 80% of usual food intake (as periodically determined in a group of ad libitum fed controls) for 131 days. One group received all of its food in 2 meals/day and the other received all of its food in 10-12 meals/day. The two groups did not differ in food intake, body weight, body composition, food efficiency (carcass energy gain per amount of food eaten), or energy expenditure at any time during the study. Both food-restricted groups had a lower food intake, body weight gain, and energy expenditure than a group of ad libitum-fed controls. In conclusion, these results suggest that amount of food eaten, but not the pattern with which it is ingested, has a major influence on energy balance during mild food restriction.

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu.../3177693?dopt=Abstract

[Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency]

[Article in German]

Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Müller HL, Hollomey S.

To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu.../3592618?dopt=Abstract

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.

Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism.
Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR, Kester AD.

Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

The pattern of food intake can affect the regulation of body weight and lipogenesis. We studied the effect of meal frequency on human energy expenditure (EE) and its components. During 1 week ten male adults (age 25-61 years, body mass index 20.7-30.4 kg/m2) were fed to energy balance at two meals/d (gorging pattern) and during another week at seven meals/d (nibbling pattern). For the first 6 d of each week the food was provided at home, followed by a 36 h stay in a respiration chamber. O2 consumption and CO2 production (and hence EE) were calculated over 24 h. EE in free-living conditions was measured over the 2 weeks with doubly-labelled water (average daily metabolic rate, ADMR). The three major components of ADMR are basal metabolic rate (BMR), diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) and EE for physical activity (ACT). There was no significant effect of meal frequency on 24 h EE or ADMR. Furthermore, BMR and ACT did not differ between the two patterns. DIT was significantly elevated in the gorging pattern, but this effect was neutralized by correction for the relevant time interval. With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated.

Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency

[Article in German]

Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Muller HL, Hollomey S.

To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.

Meal frequency influences circulating hormone levels but not lipogenesis rates in humans.

Jones PJ, Namchuk GL, Pederson RA.

Division of Human Nutrition, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

To determine whether human lipogenesis is influenced by the frequency of meal consumption, 12 subjects were divided into two groups and fed isocaloric nutritionally adequate liquid diets over 3 days, either as three larger diurnal (n = 6) or as six small, evenly spaced (n = 6) meals per day. On day 2 (08:00 h) of each diet period, 0.7 g deuterium (D) oxide/kg body water was administered and blood was collected every 4 hours over 48 hours for measurement of plasma insulin and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) levels. At each time point, the incorporation of D into plasma triglyceride fatty acid (TG-FA) was also determined by isotope ratio mass spectrometry after TG-FA extraction and combustion/reduction. Insulin and GIP levels were elevated over daytime periods in subjects fed three versus six meals per day. Contribution of de novo synthesis to total TG-FA production was not significantly different for days 2 and 3 in subjects consuming three (6.56% +/- 1.32% and 6.64% +/- 2.08%, respectively) and six (7.67% +/- 2.29% and 7.88% +/- 1.46%, respectively) meals per day. Net TG-FA synthesis rates over days 2 and 3 were 1.47 +/- 0.33 and 1.55 +/- 0.53 g/d, respectively, for subjects fed three meals per day, and 1.64 +/- 0.47 and 1.69 +/- 0.30 g/d for subjects fed six meals per day. These findings suggest that consuming fewer but larger daily meals is not accompanied by increases in TG-FA synthesis, despite the observation of hormonal peaks.

I could go on further if you really wanted me to...
 

KoolDrew

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
10,226
7
81
Other people such as Alan Aragon, Martin Berkhan, and Lyle McDonald have covered the topics in detail as well. Since I'm not going to type everything out of books and post it on the internet I'll post an excerpt Martin posted on his blog for your reading pleasure. It should be of more use than studies as it'll be easier to understand and actually explained.

http://www.leangains.com/

Since I talked about meal frequency in the BFFM book review, and how 99% of diet/fitness books keeps reiterating the same old jargon about how several small meals a day 'stokes/fires up your metabolism', I thought I might as well go ahead and clear up the confusion surrounding this subject.

Below is an abbreviated (and unedited) excerpt from my upcoming book, with the working title 'The 16-8 System'. An extensive introduction to my approach can be found here.


(from a chapter called "Dispelling the Myths")

?Eating several small meals a day is superior to a few large meals a day?

Despite being a highly impractical meal pattern for many people, this is by far the most common diet myth around; not only in the fitness community, but also in the mass media. As a consequence, it?s also the hardest diet myth to kill, as it?s being perpetually kept alive and repeated ad infinitum by the supplement industry, nutritionists that can?t put the research into proper context and people that just keeps repeating what the others are saying. Let?s look at what the actual studies can tell us about this topic.


Meal frequency and TEF


You?ve probably heard that eating smalls meals throughout the day ?stokes the metabolic fire? or is the ideal way to eat in order to control cravings and blood sugar; as consequence, this should also be the ideal way to eat for fat burning purposes. This belief is partly based on a gross and blatantly incorrect interpretation of research concerning TEF (Thermic Effect of Food).

Besides body weight, activity patterns and genetics, TEF is part of the equation that determines your metabolic rate for each given day. Paradoxically, ingesting energy costs energy and TEF is the increase in metabolic rate above basal conditions due to the cost of processing food for storage and use (ref). Simply put, every time you eat, the body expends a certain percentage of energy just to process the food you just ate. TEF varies between the macronutrients; protein is given a value of 20-25%, carbs 5% and fat 2-3% (ref). In a mixed diet, TEF is usually estimated to 10% of the calorie intake.

So, every time you eat, TEF comes into play and your metabolic rate increases in response to the meal you just ate. The problem here is that the research has been presented in such a way that it has lead people to believe that the net effect of TEF of several small meals would be greater than that of a few, large meals.

You see, TEF is directly proportional to the calories contained in the meal you just ate (ref). Assuming a diet of 2400 calories, with the same macronutrient composition, eating six small meals of 400 calories or three big meals of 800 calories, TEF will be exactly the same at the end of the day. The only thing that will differ between each meal pattern is the pattern of the spikes; six small meals will equal six small spikes in metabolic rates, while three big meals will equal three big spikes.

So, while eating several small meals a day will per definition ?keep the metabolic furnace burning?, three big meals will ?keep the metabolic furnace blasting?.

How about fat burning? As researchers have found, substrate metabolism is largely dictated by the meal you just ate and the macronutrient composition of your diet - how you split your meals have no consequence for the amount of fat oxidized at the end of the day (ref). Simply put, if you eat six small meals throughout the day, you will store and burn less fat between the meals compared to three meals a day, while you will store and burn more fat with three meals a day. Substrate metabolism will be different, but the net effect will be the same on either meal pattern.

Note that I say ?store?, because fat storage and fat burning is an ongoing process ? with six small meals you will store less AND burn less, and with three meals a day you will store more AND burn more. This is important to remember, as it can and has been twisted into ?you will store more fat with three meals a day?. Sure, if you measure fat storage on a meal per meal basis, which is insane, but on the other hand you will burn more fat in between the meals. Whether you store or lose body fat at the end of the day is a consequence of intake minus expenditure; not meal frequency.

In conclusion, different meal splits have no effect on metabolic rate or fat metabolism.

I must admit that I?m a bit amazed at how people keep missing the boat when it comes to meal frequency and TEF. This myth is also prevalent in the minds of many professionals, which is even more confusing. The research is there, right in front of your eyes if you know where to look, and there?s been several large scale, meticulously controlled and well designed studies on the topic of meal frequency and TEF. And still, people keep believing that several small meals a day will increase your energy expenditure beyond what fewer, large meals will do.

Then again, the powers that be, in this case the supplement industry, loves the fact that the myth is being kept alive. What do people eat when they are being told that they should eat six meals a day? Well, it sure isn?t six home cooked meals. Rather, people are downing meal replacement products, protein shakes and bars in between the main meals. This is a billion dollar industry that is partly being kept alive by erroneous beliefs. Bodybuilding and fitness magazines usually have no interest in presenting accurate information about the topic, as they derive a large part of their financing from supplement ads. In fact, many magazine writers have a vested interest in keeping the myth alive as well, themselves being owners of supplement companies that make millions out of selling protein powders and meal replacement bars.

Is a high frequency meal plan ever warranted? Sure, if your energy expenditure is extremely high, it would probably be a lot more comfortable to consume your calories in several meals rather than a few very large ones. The 300 lbs off-season bodybuilder or endurance athlete that needs 5-6000 calories a day to maintain body weight would be better advised eating 6 meals of 1000 calories rather than 3 meals with 2000 calories. Some other instances, such as some teenagers having a hard time putting on weight, would also warrant a high frequency meal plan simply because it would be hard getting all the calories in three meals.

However, these cases represent a minority of people. Getting enough calories in few meals doesn?t seem to be a problem for the great majority, and going by the feedback the 16-8 system has been getting, it?s definitely a more comfortable way to eat for many people.


Studies cited for this excerpt (in no particular order)

Denzer CM - The effect of resistance exercise on the thermic effect of food - International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism

Bellisle F et al. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.

Westerterp KR et al. Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9

Taylor MA , Garrow JS. Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients ina chamber calorimeter. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.

Jones PJ et al. Meal frequency influences circulating hormone levels but not lipogenesis rates in humans. Metabolism. 1995 Feb;44(2):218-23.
 

Megatomic

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
20,127
6
81
Is a high frequency meal plan ever warranted? Sure, if your energy expenditure is extremely high, it would probably be a lot more comfortable to consume your calories in several meals rather than a few very large ones.
Thanks for posting those links KookDrew. The snip I quoted may explain why it has worked for me so well, I burn a TON of calories every week in my physical training. I do endurance cardio at least 5 times a week and I do 3 circuit training sessions of core and strength work a week as preparation for competing in an ironman triathlon in 2010.
 

conorvansmack

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2004
5,041
0
76
I'm convinced. Thanks for the evidence. I'll eat when I'm hungry. Looks like I got caught up in the minutiae that Skoorb referred to.
 

KoolDrew

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
10,226
7
81
I'm not saying eating many small meals is a bad idea, not at all. For things like controlling appetite it can help tremendously. However, everybody is different and forcing yourself to eat 5-6 small meals just because you are under the impression that it will somehow help metabolism is most likely making things more complicated and difficult then they need to be.

Keep things simple when dieting. In the end it's calories that matter and how easy it is to stick to your diet and remain in a consistent calorie deficit. If eating smaller frequent meals helps you do that, then do that.

The OP should be worrying about tracking his food intake to make sure he is in a calorie deficit and meeting his protein goal rather than trying to eat 5-6 small meals a day.
 

nervegrind3r

Lifer
Jul 12, 2004
16,267
5
81
I dont look at the clock, I just eat when my stomach tells me its time to eat, usually every 2 and half hours, but it varies. I always have meals prepared and ready because when im hungry, i need to eat quickly. For the most part, I eat 5 times a day, but if I am really active, I squeeze in 6.