5 Meals a Day Does Not Help Weight Loss

Very debatable what's been said here I guess it depends what you snack on etc. I dare say it works for some people and others not.

Eat when you are hungry, eat healthily and don't eat too much. The rest will take care of itself.

It works for me, anyway. I do much better on several smaller meals than fewer, larger ones. Maybe it's because I have blood sugar issues-- but I weigh less, feel better, and perform better in athletics with the smaller, more frequent meals.

I wonder if the individual nature of it affects the results-- my husband, if he were to eat more often, would still be able to and would want to eat the same size meal for each one... so you'd have him averaging it with a gain, where I'd have a loss -- for a net of nothing.

I have tried this way of eating -- all the fitness mags recommend it -- and it always leaves me hungry and in graze mode. I have to eat 3 squares a day with 1 snack of fruit and a few almonds.

I think it's interesting that we're encouraged to eat like the Europeans, the Mediterraneans, the Japanese because they're thin and live long healthy lives, but American fitness wisdom has us eating every few hours.
These thin, healthy cultures? They don't eat between meals.

It's worth noting that this is a popular news article covering an unpublished study to be presented at a meeting. That means that the study is without peer review scrutiny. That doesn't make the study invalid but does make the findings less reliable than a study published in full that passed peer review.

It's definitely an interesting read, but as Mike said, it's about finding what works for you rather than being swept away with the latest new fad, like so many people are these days.

For me smaller meals and regular healthy snacks work well.

i've never really seen a difference either way. i've tried the snacky diet and i've tried 3 meals. i've found that working at a desk doesn't require as many calories for energy- usually, i eat something small for breakfast (half a bagel), a snack for lunch (perhaps a granola bar with plenty of protein) and finally, dinner is the largest meal of the day, however, i do not eat after dinner at all- thus far it has helped me keep over 30 lbs off!

As someone who's been on a program with snacks, with remarkable results, I'd have to say that the issue with snacks for me wasn't the metabolism factor - it was never getting too hungry.

What made me likely to fall of the wagon doing three meals is that I'd come to dinner starving and always want to have more food. Whereas, if I have 5 properly portioned meals, I make it through the day without losing control, which is the biggest factor for me.

So, I guess you're right that it's all individual.

There is very little research supporting multiple small meals per day and most it is epidemiological studies, not clinical trials like the one mentioned above.

Perhaps the problem is that the three meals most people are eating are filled with the wrong foods, foods that make you hungry rather than keeping you satiated. Protein and fat are well known for their appetite-suppressing qualities, but the average person is eating too many carbs and not enough of the other more healthful macronutrients.

The problem with the 3 + 3 meal plan is that it requires controlling portions 6 times a day. It's typically easier to not eat than to eat just a little as the human brain is geared to keep eating as long as food is available. Blame your hunter-gatherer ancestors.

Cheers
Scott Kustes
Modern Forager

Did they monitor calorie intake or was it self-reported? Because there might be a big difference between the calories people "said" they ate and what they actually ate.

I would guess that whether you eat 3 or 5 times a day doesn't really matter as long as the total energy you're intaking is not more than what you are expending.

This has to be a personal thing. Some people need to stick to three meals because they will just use the extra meals as an excuse to snack and graze inappropriately all day. Some people need those in-between meals or they will be ravenous at meal time and eat way too much. I have to be aware of both - if I snack I have to really police myself to stick to good stuff, and if I don't take the edge off if I go too long between meals I'll eat a meal that's too large. It's always about what you choose and how much you choose no matter how many times a day you eat.

What blows me away is the stupid things that people feel they need to study - or maybe more accurately can get paid to study. 90 per cent of us on this forum know that the answer to this is not something that requires a study, not rocket science, just common sense.

But I guess if it wasn't for all these studies we'd have nothing to bounce off of.

One of the other theoretical benefits of 'grazing' is better control of blood sugar / insulin spikes. By reducing the time between meals, you are keeping blood sugar & insulin production more stable - avoiding wild fluctuating peaks and valleys in the insulin production curve.

However, that theory only works if the 5-6 snacks are healthy. Dividing you diet of a dozen donuts into 6 meals instead of 3 is not going to keep the pounds off.

Love the Captain Obvious graphic!

Obviously eating more small meals doesn't help you lose weight directly.

Intermittent fasting blows that idea out of the water.

The way you lose weight is by eating fewer calories than you expend.

HOWEVER, eating more small meals throughout the day makes it EASIER to eat a reduced calorie diet, which INCREASES adherence to the diet over the long term.

Conversely, eating more small meals throughout the day makes it EASIER to eat a HYPER-caloric diet for those trying to build muscle. After all, eating three 1,000 calorie meals is much more difficult than eating six 500 calorie meals.

I've been eating six meals a day for over a year now, and trust me, whether shedding fat or bulking up, more meals makes the whole process MUCH easier.

I'm a firm believer in the "Is it working test!"

Maybe we can get paid to study that :-)