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It's worth noting that this is a popular news article covering an unpublished study to be presented at a meeting.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 :-)

I personally find it hard to believe that basically eating three large meals in a day is better than breaking up the 3 meals into 6 smaller meals. It doesn't make sense in terms of blood sugar levels, metabolism and weight loss.

Do obese people know what a small meal is anyway?

They could have been eating six big meals, it's a worthless study.

Sounds like "calories in, calories out" is supported as a valid theory once again. Break those calories up how you like, but expend the equivalent energy or you will gain weight.

Barring the rare metabolic exception, it seems to be a pretty simple and universal rule.

If you are eating meat and veggies and not processed sugars...you don't need 6 meals a day to control insulin response. Multiple meals works for people who still eat processed and high carb foods...if you eat more protein/healthy fats then it has no "thermic" advantage...that has been BS posted by people who want to sell their "diet". Ok...so you can burn like an extra 40calories with 6 meals....is that really going to make the difference? No. Find what works for you of course...but most people can not stick with 6x a day, fall off the diet bandwagon and then gourge back on sugar....so most of those diets fail because of that fact alone. It has to be realistic lifestyle changes that will last for real long term benefits.

Ideally I would recommend three whole meals a day with two snacks, preferably almonds, cashews, or peanuts.

It's well established that going with 5 meals a day will help you directly with weight loss. But indirectly it can help you keep hunger pangs to a minimum and may still be effective long term.

It varies from person to person

Snacking and grazing every couple hours never worked for me. Yes, it filled me up somewhat, but I'd still be hungry enough at mealtime to eat a full meal. Thus, it just amounted to excess calories throughout the day. As i've lost weight, i've come to relish that empty, gnawing feeling of true physical hunger. THAT's when i know i NEED to eat and that i wouldn't be eating merely out of appetite.

I have been using the 5-6 meal a day diet along with exercise. So far I have lost about 20 pounds. However, I believe that it's not just how often I am eating but the increase of exercise and the decrease of junk that I eat. The 5 to 6 meals a day is really more of a mind trick for me. I don't feel as if I'm giving up anything, because my belly is full, but my snacks are all healthy and low calorie. On other diets I've felt deprived, because I was always hungry.

I think that having low calorie snacks between meals is a good thing. It stops one feeling over hungry and then going on an eating binge. If proper snacks are eaten it also helps you achieve a balanced diet.

It's all about the total amount of calories that you consume vs. the amount of calories you expend. However you're able to do it, whether it's eating 3 structured meals a day or 6 small meals a day or eating more in the morning or more at night....whatever you do, if it works for you, you'll lose weight. It's frustrating for people to be told "eat 6 times a day" if that makes them feel constantly hungry and/or if they have a difficult time eating only 200-300 calorie "meals". So maybe that person does better eating 3 500-600 calorie meals. I personally have tried the 6 meal a day approach, but it didn't work for me at all because I was constantly hungry and it just wasn't convenient for me. I found eating 3 meals of very non-processed foods really helps me feel energized and I don't feel hungry; thus, I have a pretty good handle on how many calories I consume.

I'm getting a little tired of all these studies that take a health/weight loss approach that does work for some people, find a reason it wouldn't work for some other people, and then inspire dozens of hysterical articles about how ZOMG said strategy is worthless and NO ONE should do it!!1!1!oneone

For god's sake, are we all that freaking terrified of thinking for ourselves and finding out what works for us and what doesn't?

Nice to meet you. It is Kawano working hard for diet every day. I thought that I would have all of you of the English zone know diet circumstances in Japan and made this blog. Please do link in this blog if the all of you who watched this blog do not trouble you.

I agree with the people that said it's case by case and you should do what work's best for you personally. If you are able to eat healthy snacks, and find your appetite satisfied, then eating multiple times a day could be very helpful. However, it does not work for everyone, so you should not feel obligated to eat like this.

Here's why i recommend 5 meals a day - Eating 5 smaller meals a day helps suppress your appetite + eating more meals = more digestion which means more of a metabolic advantage of the TEF (thermic effect of food) that'll burn a little extra calories

wrote a too long comment which I accidentally deleted (or is it the THERE ARE NO ACCIDENTS theory at work and was someone above saving ya'll from my soapboxing?!)---so Ill just say:

it works for me.

I did the mini-meals thing for a while. It didn't work for me. They didn't feel me up, so two hours later I was eating again, and overall, I ended up eating more than I would have if I'd just had 3 larger meals a day, which is what I stick to now.

Eating 5 meals a day works for me. I previously was a big time meal skipper... that sure as heck didn't keep me thin! Nope, skipping meals got me all the way up to 262 pounds!

Eating complete smaller meals more frequently does help me combat hunger... better still, I've actually learned to have and RECOGNIZE real hunger pangs! And that's a plus in my book! Never happened to me before... I used to not eat until about 4-5 PM with no hunger pangs at all... then I'd go RAVENOUS and eat a huge meal all at once.

I do think it is still important WHAT you eat... 5 meals a day of McDonald's Big Macs and fries probably isn't going to work that well, LOL!

But 5 meals with good protein, veggies, nuts or other healthy fats and moderate whole grains works nicely, at least for me.

As for the person who said that burning 40 extra calories a day is pointless, ah, that adds up to a 4 pound weight loss over a year! Less pointless when you look at it that way! Might make the difference for some folks between maintaining and gaining.

At any rate, it's a style of eating that is obviously not for all, but if it works for you, then I wouldn't let some study put you off it.

Hi, there!

It works for me and it has done for many, many years. However, it depends on what one eats!

I recommend eating eat a meal about every 3 waking hours (5 or 6 meals per day). One is not eating more food; but simply spreading it throughout the day. Each of those 5 or 6 feedings should contain at least 15 grams of unprocessed protein (from natural sources) for a female or at least 20 grams per feeding for a male. This change alone, as long as long as quality PROTEIN is included, such as fish, organic chicken, grass-fed beef, etc (unless one is vegetarian), will boost metabolism and curb food cravings.

One should also eliminate all processed (refined) carbohydrates. Processed (refined) carbohydrates have negative effects on health. They also slow down metabolism and cause weight gain.

Processed (refined) carbs include such things as ice cream, cookies, bread, rolls, buns, pasta, tacos, potato chips/crisps, pizza, cakes, sweets, candy, cookies, biscuits, chocolate, cereals, store bought cooked meats/cold cuts (they have added sugars and additives), sausages/hot dog frankfurters (they have carbohydrate fillers, additives, and sometimes sugar) all sodas, sugars, and foods containing corn syrup, etc.

When digested all carbohydrates turn into sugar, and sugar becomes fat. So, think of eating carbohydrates as eating sugar. Moreover, think of eating processed (refined) carbohydrates as eating concentrated sugar.

If you want to lose body fat, allow yourself only 40 to 65 grams of carbohydrates daily. Get those carbohydrates from natural sources such as (preferably organic) fresh vegetables and low carb fruits.

There is no minimum daily requirement for carbohydrates, but they do have many beneficial phytochemicals and fiber so eating some is fine (as long as they are unprocessed).

All best wishes.

I would recommend the Warrior Diet by Ori Hofmekler.

The gist is to eat your main meal at night due to the FACT that humans are primarily nocturnal eaters. There is evidence that humans are nocturnal eaters, inherently programmed for undereating and toiling during the day, followed by overeating and relaxing at night.

1. Fuel your body with high quality protein, complex carbohydrates, and good fats.
Your calories should not ever drop below 1400 to 1500 per day and your fat intake
should be 30% of your diet. This will keep your metabolism burning hot - perfect
for fat loss.
2. Eat as much raw and fresh fruits and vegetables as you can. This will also naturally detoxify your body so that you not only absorb more nutrients more efficiently, but also eliminate fat as well as toxins quicker.
3. Eat low food chain proteins such as cheese, yogurt, and eggs. When you do eat other protein sources keep away from high sodium and saturated fat foods such as red meat and pork as these meats take about 8-12 hours to digest in your body. Much of those meats simply just sit and rot in your gut before they are released. Meats should be poultry and fish. These are the best.

For more info on this let me know: www.bobgarontraining.com or alwaysbelieve1@gmail.com

Thanks,

Bob Garon II

Until this study is published somewhere and we can read the specifics of it, this really doesn't mean very much. I can imagine several ways this study could be legitimately conducted to yield the results reported. One of the simplest ways would be to dramatically restrict calories. If you’re only consuming 800-1,000 calories per day — a level that’s going to send your body into “survival” mode – whether you eat them in 3 meals or 6 snacks is not going to make any difference. This sort of result doesn’t prove anything.

Additionally, Dr Crowe makes some ludicrous statements that clearly betray his lack of objectivity. For instance -- “Six small days at McDonald’s clearly isn’t going to help you lose weight.”

No proponent of multiple small meals has ever made this claim - rather, all have consistently emphasized the importance of “how much they’re eating and of course what they’re eating.”

The study doesn't appear to address other factors that contribute to any successful weight loss plan; energy levels, productivity, satiety, and so forth. Smaller meals keeps blood sugar levels and energy balanced, reducing the risk of both an energy and productivity crash.

I have a problem with reactive hypoglycemia and the fewer meals I eat per day, the better I feel.

Minimeals do not keep my blood sugar levels "even." In fact, when I eat meals/snacks too close together, I produce too much insulin which results in a blood sugar crash.

The worse crash I ever had was trying to follow a diet called, The Insulin Resistance Diet. I was eating every few hours, hungry or not. I was at a library and had a crash. I drove to the nearest fast food joint and ordered a hamburger, fries, and frosty - about 1100 calories. I'm surprised I knew who I was or where I lived. It took me four hours to pull out of that disaster.

So, I follow all of these studies but am amazed at how worthless they are. Who in the heck would eat their daily calories in one meal? You'd be Thanksgiving uncomfortable on a daily basis and feel like a slug afterwards. The most I can manage is 800 if home-cooked.

I'm still trying to find the perfect plan for myself. I need to lose about 30 pounds. Also, I do karate three times a week, so I need energy in the evenings...

Hi Lynne

When following that plan, one is not meant to eat more food. One is supposed to spread (smaller feedings) throughout the day and each of those small feedings should contain at least 15 grams of quality (unprocessed) protein for a female and at least 20 grams for a male.

It will not work if the protein is not included or if refined carbohydrates are included.

The results of the study cited, lack of weight and inches lost, as well as the unchanged blood sugar levels, have nothing to do with eating 5 times a day, and everything to do with what they ate. The article mentioned that all the subjects had the same caloric intake, but were not all using the same diets. This is where the results of the study in regard to eating 5 times a day fall apart. This uses the "calorie is a calorie" mentality. The "calorie is a calorie" idea is not necessarily so. Hormonal responses to various combinations of protein, carb and fat (P, C and F), which dictate whether there will be any loss of stored fat and how well blood sugar will be kept at a stable lower level, differ depending on the combinations of P, C and F eaten, even when the amount of total calorie intake remains the same. In the 1950's studies were done putting people on various different diets, each containing only 1,000 calories per day. Those in the diet with 90% of their 1,000 calories were from protein, those on the diet with 90% of the 1,000 calories from fat, and those with the diet of mixed macronutrients (about 42% from carbs), all lost weight . But those on the 1,000 calorie a day diets where 90% of those calories were from carbs actually gained weight! A person who cuts caloric intake will lose some weight, but will eventually plateau and feel hungry, feel deprived, and even fatigued unless they eat in a way that takes into consideration the hormonal effects of food. In this regard, a calorie is not simply a calorie. This is explained in the Zone diet books. For more related info, check out zonediet.com

Whatever works for weight loss for an individual is what they should do. Losing weight has huge health benefits.

But Note: That for those who are not diabetic or have problems with hypoglycemia, that occasional short fasts are probably good for you. Keeping your blood sugar levels constant (again, if you do not have blood sugar control problems) is now thought not to be the best thing to do. Short occasional fasts reset your insulin sensitivity, and are thought to be associated with a decreasing the risk of cardiovascular disease. Of course our ancestors of course had periods of time without food. Fasting means not eating a couple of meals and then eating normally, not the missing breakfast and lunch and then eating a huge meal in the evening.

I have a short post on my blog about this topic
www.lifeagingand.com/life/occasional-short-fasts-may-be-healthy/

At the end of the day all weight loss comes down to calories in vs calories out. Whether it's 3 meals a day or 5 meals a day, people need to find a way of eating that suits their lifestyle and metabolism.

As Judith said, whatever works for weight loss for an individual is what they should do...