***the 6 meals a day myth***

[the big 1]

i have just read a article with scientifc knowledge that insists eating 6 meals a day makes no difference to eating 3 meals a day WHAT SO EVER !!!

and i must say it makes perfect sense to me...

say you eat 3 meals a day, each 1000 calories total, it adds up to 3000kcal, correct.

now the same can be said of eating 6 meals each at 500 kcal each, it still adds up to 3000 kcals !!!

the only difference between the two, is the amount of f*cking effort and ***** footing around 6 meals take to prepare, and the rather convient approach of just eating like a god damn normal person does and just having three !!!

now heres were everyone will say to me 'dont be stupid' 'everyone knows 6 meals is nessary so metabolism stays stoked' and shit like that, well i URGE you to read this whole article ive linked to this post, as it will answer your every question...

there is only a few PISS POOR studies that actually have proven that metabolism is increased by increased meal frequincy, and even then the studies showed an increase in calories in the subjects consuming 6 as opposed to 3, which meant the increase was due to greater kcal INTAKE through poor planning !!!

please read before laying into me guys !!! enjoy...

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

[stokedv]

If this is going where this is going and ends up being true, then i will be very VERY greatful to you my friend... This is intense... I enjoy so much eating 3 times a day + 1 shake after the gym.. makes my day feel so "normal"

[the big 1]

If this is going where this is going and ends up being true, then i will be very VERY greatful to you my friend... This is intense... I enjoy so much eating 3 times a day + 1 shake after the gym.. makes my day feel so "normal"

Eating 6 meals a day over 3 DOES NOT !!! increase the metabolism !!! IF, total calories for THE WHOLE DAY are the same !!!

read it and get back to me mate, its true i promise, as with anything like this there are exceptions, but the above comments stands true....

[Big]

the thing is, your body is constantly re-learning and re-assigning the way in which food is burned or stored. for the sake of argument, lets say you eat very infrequently. your body does not know when the next meal is coming, so it will have a higher tendency to store food, like a squirrel stores nuts for the winter. by feeding your body very frequently, it learns that the next meal is right around the corner and the way the food is burned/processed is much more efficient for our goals.
or I could just be full of bs

[Big]

I think the article makes a good point also with regard to the size of meals, perhaps it's true that a 120lb female doesn't need 6 meals a day, but for the shear number of calories I consume when I'm bulking I don't care to stretch my gut with 3 huge meals per day.

[the big 1]

I think the article makes a good point also with regard to the size of meals, perhaps it's true that a 120lb female doesn't need 6 meals a day, but for the shear number of calories I consume when I'm bulking I don't care to stretch my gut with 3 huge meals per day.

he does mention that meal frequincy must increase for big guys like yourself.
i cant imagine eating 2000 kcal in the morning in one sitting, ide feel like a rite pig.

but the rule still applies that if calories are the same so is the metabolism, regardless of meal frequincy...

its also says in one study that 2 meals vs 6 meals with the same macros can have a less anabolic effect... 1 meal has an anabolic time of around 5 hours, so the body was left catabolic somewhat with only 2 meals , but the arguement is 3 vs 6 meals, so it doesn't really count in that sense.

[Big]

yeah if I was 120lbs I don't see myself eating 6 meals a day. of course I'd have to cut all my limbs off to be 120lbs so I'd probably have a feeding tube lol. good read though.

[stokedv]

wow very interesting article it's very credible .. I guess we can choose where to start (3 or 4 meals) and as we get bigger, and the meals become too big, then we add an extra meal to break the food up so we dont overeat in one setting and become lazy..

[the big 1]

yeah if I was 120lbs I don't see myself eating 6 meals a day. of course I'd have to cut all my limbs off to be 120lbs so I'd probably have a feeding tube lol. good read though.

haha

My guess as to how many people on this forum, who will change there daily meals to 3 after reading this is ZERO...

but just so everyone knows, the reason they should have 6 is due to there high calorie needs, not to increase metabolism...(im still having trouble believing it myself, but its science !!!)

[the big 1]

wow very interesting article it's very credible .. I guess we can choose where to start (3 or 4 meals) and as we get bigger, and the meals become too big, then we add an extra meal to break the food up so we dont overeat in one setting and become lazy..

sounds good,

i think the issue with more meals more often is that it overworks people, preparation and timing drives me mad... if i knew i could get the same results from a less frequint feedings i would, but i feel what with Post WO nutrition and before bed meals, 3 meals becomes unpractical for our goals at gaining mass...

[Jfew44]

Even if this is true, it should not apply to most of us. Let's say a 200lb guy is taking in 1.5x/bodyweight of protein a day. This means he needs to consume 100 grams of protein each meal. I'm not a scientist but I can tell you that my body WILL NOT use that protein as efficiently as if I take in 50 grams of protein spread out through 6 meals. Just my .02

[bigboomer]

I enjoy knowing I have a steady amount of protein and aminos feeding my muscle throughout my entire day.

[G4R]

It looks great on paper, but, I have seen too many people bust their butt in the gym, run nice cycles but only have time for a few meals a day (larger meals that would consist of my smaller meals) and just not have the results that the next guy who is eating 6 meals a day gets. Now, is it just coincidence? According to the link it is.

It all sounds nice, and for all I know my 6 - 7 meals a day may be pointless, but, I know the results I get with my multiple meals, and I don't plan on changing it.

[the big 1]

Even if this is true, it should not apply to most of us. Let's say a 200lb guy is taking in 1.5x/bodyweight of protein a day. This means he needs to consume 100 grams of protein each meal. I'm not a scientist but I can tell you that my body WILL NOT use that protein as efficiently as if I take in 50 grams of protein spread out through 6 meals. Just my .02

i coudn't agree more, but when science suggests that more meals DOESNT increase metabolic rate, it makes me wonder if the body can process 100g of protien at once ? theres no science that suggests otherwise ?

I enjoy knowing I have a steady amount of protein and aminos feeding my muscle throughout my entire day.

me too, but if it was proven that you get this effect through 3 meals at the same macros, would you not convert to 3 for convienience ?
dont get me wrong, it would mean alterations in many things, post wo nutrition would get compromised and soforth, so im in no way suggesting it.

It looks great on paper, but, I have seen too many people bust their butt in the gym, run nice cycles but only have time for a few meals a day (larger meals that would consist of my smaller meals) and just not have the results that the next guy who is eating 6 meals a day gets. Now, is it just coincidence? According to the link it is.

It all sounds nice, and for all I know my 6 - 7 meals a day may be pointless, but, I know the results I get with my multiple meals, and I don't plan on changing it.

i would say for anyone advanced (like yourself) who is consuming a large suplus of calories like 6000 plus or something, would obviously have to divide this into at least 6 - 7 meals for obvious reasons...

if you could get the same results from less frequint feedings, would you change it ?

[G4R]

if you could get the same results from less frequint feedings, would you change it ?

That is a very good question, and believe me, I thought about it after reading the article. All in all though, I prob would not change to the 3 meal a day even if I got the same results. That is mainly from a personaly standpoint as opposed to a scientific standpoint.....

Reason 1: I like to eat.... no, I LOVE to eat. If I am consuming 5000 cal in a day, yes, technically I could get that with only 3 meals, still get my cals/fat/carbs/protein in 3 large meals (and you think large meals, you think 'Horay!'), but I 'trick' my brain into thinking I am eating more by spreading my meals out through the day. Which brings me to....

Reason 2: I hate feeling hungry. If I am only eating 3 meals a day, there are gonig to be times when I am going to get hungry between those meals. The down side is though, I cant eat a snack inbetween them now because I dont want to exceed my macro count. If I start to feel hungry, I lose energy, I feel almost lethargic and I will start to get a headache. I would be useless all day long, and then I have to train!

I mainly think it would be kind of difficult to do the 3 meals a day because of how the meals would have to consist of. Even running a lean muscle diet would be odd. If I needed around 350g of Protein a day, that means I would need around 117g of Protein per meal, which would be like 2 large chicken breasts, or 4 cans of tuna, or 16 egg whites. Then I would need around 300g of carbs per day, or 100g per meal which would be 2 cups of oatmeal, or 2 cups of brown rice. Now the fat would not really be an issue to get, and the calories would add up too, but here is what a regular days meals on just a lean muscle diet would look like:

Meal 1:
16 Egg whites
2 Cups Oatmeal
xxxx

Meal 2:
4 Cans of tuna
2 cups Brown rice
xxxx

Meal 3:
2 large Chicken breasts
2 Cups brown rice
xxxx

And I still have to fit at least one protein shake in there without throwing off my macro count. My problem would be, I wouldnt be able to eat an entire meal, so then I would be losing macros there as well. Plus, I assume I would have to workout after Meal 2, but then I wouldnt be able to have a PWO carb snack without having to take some carbs out of my 3rd meal, but then I am starting to defeat the purpose of only eating 3 meals.

I am not saying that the 3 meals a day diet/macro intake wont work. I hope it does, that way more people are able to accomplish their goals, but for me, it wouldnt work.

[the big 1]

That is a very good question, and believe me, I thought about it after reading the article. All in all though, I prob would not change to the 3 meal a day even if I got the same results. That is mainly from a personaly standpoint as opposed to a scientific standpoint.....

Reason 1: I like to eat.... no, I LOVE to eat. If I am consuming 5000 cal in a day, yes, technically I could get that with only 3 meals, still get my cals/fat/carbs/protein in 3 large meals (and you think large meals, you think 'Horay!'), but I 'trick' my brain into thinking I am eating more by spreading my meals out through the day. Which brings me to....

Reason 2: I hate feeling hungry. If I am only eating 3 meals a day, there are gonig to be times when I am going to get hungry between those meals. The down side is though, I cant eat a snack inbetween them now because I dont want to exceed my macro count. If I start to feel hungry, I lose energy, I feel almost lethargic and I will start to get a headache. I would be useless all day long, and then I have to train!

I mainly think it would be kind of difficult to do the 3 meals a day because of how the meals would have to consist of. Even running a lean muscle diet would be odd. If I needed around 350g of Protein a day, that means I would need around 117g of Protein per meal, which would be like 2 large chicken breasts, or 4 cans of tuna, or 16 egg whites. Then I would need around 300g of carbs per day, or 100g per meal which would be 2 cups of oatmeal, or 2 cups of brown rice. Now the fat would not really be an issue to get, and the calories would add up too, but here is what a regular days meals on just a lean muscle diet would look like:

Meal 1:
16 Egg whites
2 Cups Oatmeal
xxxx

Meal 2:
4 Cans of tuna
2 cups Brown rice
xxxx

Meal 3:
2 large Chicken breasts
2 Cups brown rice
xxxx

And I still have to fit at least one protein shake in there without throwing off my macro count. My problem would be, I wouldnt be able to eat an entire meal, so then I would be losing macros there as well. Plus, I assume I would have to workout after Meal 2, but then I wouldnt be able to have a PWO carb snack without having to take some carbs out of my 3rd meal, but then I am starting to defeat the purpose of only eating 3 meals.

I am not saying that the 3 meals a day diet/macro intake wont work. I hope it does, that way more people are able to accomplish their goals, but for me, it wouldnt work.

reasons 1 and 2 are the same reasons im not going to be changing my meal frequincy...

it just feels good to know that you dont have to be so anal ALL the time with meals and macros... now i know that all i have to do is get my total macros right for the day im a lot more happier to cut back on meal frequincy and have proper/bigger meals...

as im only 195lbs, my calorie requirements for maintenaince are only around 3500, so i think for me, 5 or 6 meals is my happy medium. ile have three square meals, and then 2 large shakes post workout and before bedtime....

ide say another issue is insulin spikes, and separation of fats and carbs. reason being, all three of those meals are going to have large amounts of each macronutrient, which will lead to more fat gain i suspect...

[G4R]

I guess what I am trying to say is, I think the 3 meals a day would be harder than it actually looks.

But, if it works for you, go for it.

[the big 1]

I guess what I am trying to say is, I think the 3 meals a day would be harder than it actually looks.

But, if it works for you, go for it.

i know what you mean mate...

i may try it sometime to maintain muscle, maybe when im on a lay off, or too busy to train often for whatever reason

[Flagg]

It was my belief that 6 smaller meals were more beneficial to 3 larger meals because of keeping your body in a state of anabolic growth.

It's exactly why infants have to be fed every 2-3 hours a day, to help with their maturation. Can you imagine giving a 6 month old everything it needed in one drink and leaving him/her to it?

There is only so much the body can take and use beneficially in one sitting.

[the big 1]

It was my belief that 6 smaller meals were more beneficial to 3 larger meals because of keeping your body in a state of anabolic growth.

It's exactly why infants have to be fed every 2-3 hours a day, to help with their maturation. Can you imagine giving a 6 month old everything it needed in one drink and leaving him/her to it?

There is only so much the body can take and use beneficially in one sitting.

your right, every time we eat it keeps our body in an anabolic state for 5 or 6 hours....

hence three meals would be suffiecient, were as 1 or 2 meals over a 16 hour period would make most catabolic...

but the arguement is, 3 meals against 6 is the same, as long as macros are the same aswell...

[Flagg]

your right, every time we eat it keeps our body in an anabolic state for 5 or 6 hours....

hence three meals would be suffiecient, were as 1 or 2 meals over a 16 hour period would make most catabolic...

but the arguement is, 3 meals against 6 is the same, as long as macros are the same aswell...

Im no dietician, but asides from 6 meals keeping your body in a constant anabolic state, is it also not also about what you eat and when? Providing your body with the correct nutrients and energy requirements for pre gym workout?

Say I eat at 8am, then 12pm...then I go to the gym at 5pm. That's five hours I've gone without eating. Now if I eat before hand, fine...but you are not going to eat after your workout, because you've maxed your 3 meal limit for the day? What will your body draw on, post workout? And if you do eat after your workout, I dont see how you have the energy to workout after having no food for 5 hours. A lot of people that constantly feel tired blame it on bad sleep patterns, when a lot of it can be down to poor diet.

I'm not trying to discredit what you are saying, i'm just curious where you think the number of meals is irrelivant as long as you get that 3-4 K cal intake for the day.

[bigboomer]

It would be tough for me to go that long between feedings.haha..During my bulk phases I'm around 4500 calories a day 350 carbs 400 protein 120 fat..would be hard to stuff all that in 3 meals..I don't think I would want to, to be honest...A lot my excess fat being stored. Although I would enjoy the the convienience of 3 meals a day..

[the big 1]

Im no dietician, but asides from 6 meals keeping your body in a constant anabolic state, is it also not also about what you eat and when? Providing your body with the correct nutrients and energy requirements for pre gym workout?

Say I eat at 8am, then 12pm...then I go to the gym at 5pm. That's five hours I've gone without eating. Now if I eat before hand, fine...but you are not going to eat after your workout, because you've maxed your 3 meal limit for the day? What will your body draw on, post workout? And if you do eat after your workout, I dont see how you have the energy to workout after having no food for 5 hours. A lot of people that constantly feel tired blame it on bad sleep patterns, when a lot of it can be down to poor diet.

I'm not trying to discredit what you are saying, i'm just curious where you think the number of meals is irrelivant as long as you get that 3-4 K cal intake for the day.

im just plainly stating what the article says...im not suggesting everyone change to eating 3 meals instead of 6, im just saying there will be no increase or decrease in body weight over time if the calories are the same, 3 meals or 6, it doesnt matter...your still getting X amount of calories...
dont get me wrong, i wouldnt contenplate not eating pre and post workout and nor should anyone else, i just thought people would be interested to know that the reason they should be eating 6 meals is for convience, not because it raises metabolism, cause it dont...

I to am still going to eat 6 a day, damn i have to eat 12 tomorow as im carb loading..!!!

[the big 1]

It would be tough for me to go that long between feedings.haha..During my bulk phases I'm around 4500 calories a day 350 carbs 400 protein 120 fat..would be hard to stuff all that in 3 meals..I don't think I would want to, to be honest...A lot my excess fat being stored. Although I would enjoy the the convienience of 3 meals a day..

like i said earlier it doesnt apply to the big fellas like yourself...

if your calorie consumption is high, more meals is always better...

but picture a 120 pound female figure model, now her calorie intake would be around 1200kcal or so, could you imagine her eating a meal consisting of 200 calories 6 times a day ? it would be so small she'd eat it in 2 bites....

[bigboomer]

like i said earlier it doesnt apply to the big fellas like yourself...

if your calorie consumption is high, more meals is always better...

but picture a 120 pound female figure model, now her calorie intake would be around 1200kcal or so, could you imagine her eating a meal consisting of 200 calories 6 times a day ? it would be so small she'd eat it in 2 bites....

Lol...One bite off a turkey sandwich, umm, that my lunch..Haha..No I agree with that, she could definitely would work well on this..People with lower calories a day yes..

[bigslick7878]

i coudn't agree more, but when science suggests that more meals DOESNT increase metabolic rate, it makes me wonder if the body can process 100g of protien at once ? theres no science that suggests otherwise ?

I can't source it but I thought the body could only break down about 80grams max at one time effectively. I have read that a few places.

[the big 1]

I can't source it but I thought the body could only break down about 80grams max at one time effectively. I have read that a few places.

well its not been proven to me mate so i tend to take a middle ground approach on the subject, i divide my meals so i get about 50g per meal...

theres no evidence that suggests 100g cant get broken down, i think if the body requires that much in one sitting it would use it all, think about 300pound bodybuilders, there intake is probably around 600grams a day, so if they have 6 meals they consume 100 in each ??? i think it really depends on your body weight, and whether you muscles are broken down enough from training to actually use that much protien....

[n00bs]

Have you read "the study"

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.

Ok lets take thermogenics out of it... Do you want to talk about how your body better utilises and digests minerals vitamins ect in constant small doses throughout the day?

The "6 meal a day Myth" heading is misleading... They have asked a specific question and recieved an answer that we already knew. However they have not addressed other aspects that effect people.. Such as blood sugar balance, effects on enzymatic pathways and loads from 3 larger meals... Maldigestion of micronutrients.


It is specifici to weight loss... Although there are other reasons we eat 6 smaller meals a day that you might not be aware of.

[the big 1]

Have you read "the study"


Ok lets take thermogenics out of it... Do you want to talk about how your body better utilises and digests minerals vitamins ect in constant small doses throughout the day?

The "6 meal a day Myth" heading is misleading... They have asked a specific question and recieved an answer that we already knew. However they have not addressed other aspects that effect people.. Such as blood sugar balance, effects on enzymatic pathways and loads from 3 larger meals... Maldigestion of micronutrients.


It is specifici to weight loss... Although there are other reasons we eat 6 smaller meals a day that you might not be aware of.

??? the statement you just bolded is the point i wanted to make form this article ???

not quite sure what you mean here ? i dont believe the title is misleading if were talking about how the metabolism responds to meal frequincy ?? but i should have stated that...

i was merely stating that 6 meals does not increase the metabolism any more than 3 does, and nor will it have a greater effect on weight gain or loss if the calories expenditure and intake is the same ..... (as the article suggests)

i was not trying to create an arguement that suggest 3 meals is supierior over 6 because i dont think it is either, im just preaching what the article has taught me about meal frequincy....

[n00bs]

The idea comes into play about say you have 150g protein per meal.. How much is then utilised for anabolism of muscle tissue and other functions...

3 meals of 150g

or 6 meals of 75g

What will the body utilise better? regardless of thermogenic effects...

Then comes the thing of sugar balance for some people 3 meals is just impossible due to sugar issues... 6 meals will lead to better sugar balance and not crashing.

If that makes sense... Regardless of any thermogenic or lack of effect it is still superior to eat 6 meals for other reasons..

[the big 1]

The idea comes into play about say you have 150g protein per meal.. How much is then utilised for anabolism of muscle tissue and other functions...

3 meals of 150g

or 6 meals of 75g

What will the body utilise better? regardless of thermogenic effects...

Then comes the thing of sugar balance for some people 3 meals is just impossible due to sugar issues... 6 meals will lead to better sugar balance and not crashing.

If that makes sense... Regardless of any thermogenic or lack of effect it is still superior to eat 6 meals for other reasons..

For my personal needs, 5-6 meals a day seems to be my happy medium, i get to eat pre and post workout, before bed, and have 3 square meals for work...

i would never reduce my intake to three meals a day, as it wouldnt suit my schedule...but say i did, i dont think it would make a lot of difference in my weight or appearance as long as my food choices and calorie intake is the same...thats the point im trying to make....

sugar balance, anabolism of tissue and nutrient uptake is a whole other subject that article was not writen to explain....lets stick to the subject of how it effects metabolism (which it doesnt BTW)...

[Bertuzzi]

Great read, even though it does not apply to a lot of us personally, it is a very interesting study. It does however apply to my GF and I will have her read it.

Thank you for the post.

[the big 1]

i just found another great article that talks about the same subject.....
its from elitefts...and this aint just some guy, its based on nearly 60 scientific studies....enjoy


I am a student of logic. Mathematics taught me a great deal about starting from basics and constructing the complex using small logical steps. Mathematics has a nice built-in crap-detection system as well. Each step can be traced backward and checked for correctness all the way down to the foundation if necessary. If someone used bad logic, it’s easy to find. No one trusts an idea that hasn’t been built upon smaller, proven steps.

The same is not true of the diet and exercise industry. In this world, it’s acceptable to have an idea, come up with another idea as to why it should work and sell both ideas without having tested either, without even having proof of either. There’s no foundation and no experiment to assert the validity. Many of the accepted truths we teach and practice fall within this category, and even when the idea is refuted by solid fact, it often persists out of habit.

What makes it so hard to let go? It’s the logic behind it. For most of us, the idea “if A implies B then B must be true” is very convincing, and if the person talks mostly about B, we forget to check if A is true. This is good logic put atop poor facts and it happens every day. And it’s so damn convincing that even those of us formally trained to recognize it often don’t. This is why research rules science and not intuition or the that-makes-sense acceptance that gets afforded to what are really half-baked ideas in the diet and exercise realm. In the real world, there needs to be proof that the idea is based on facts and testing to ensure the idea works.

In this series, I want to pick apart a few widely believed ideas where the logic doesn’t apply for one reason or another. I’ll start with my favorite that I hope to kill one of these days.

The Idea

Eating smaller more frequent meals increases metabolism and causes the body to burn more fat.

The Logic

If the body has to wait too long between meals, it suddenly thinks it’s starving and begins to store fat, but if it feels adequately fueled, it will release fat and those extra pounds melt away.



The Reality

The reality is simple. No matter how many meals the body gets through the day or how tightly spaced those meals, what matters for fat loss is the total calories consumed. Eat two meals or eat ten, it doesn’t matter—the fat won’t come off any faster.

I know you’ve probably heard the mini-meal hypothesis repeated enough times to make it tantamount to fact and I was once sold on the idea. It’s in the magazines, right? There must be something to it. Even several prominent nutrition certifications teach it as fact. When I searched the last 50 years of scientific literature, I found about seven studies that make that conclusion1-7 (there are two more from the last five years as well8, 9). For several years, I saw many of these studies cited over and over again and I repeated the mantra of mini-meals: eat less more often and the fat melts away.

Then I read the published research that I had been citing. I was suddenly caught in a familiar situation—a relationship where the other person is perfect until you get to know them intimately and then the good times end. So it was with my mini-meal enchantment.

When I sat down and read the studies I noticed a big problem. Four of the studies came from the 50s, 60s and early 70s and seemed poorly controlled by researchers1-4. In none of the other five did the researchers control calories5-9 but yet they still came to the conclusion that eating more frequent meals increases metabolism and aids in losing weight and fat loss. From their work, they could not know if people unconsciously ate fewer calories when eating multiple meals or if eating frequently increased metabolism. I dug deeper.

None of the studies measured changes in daily calories as the participants moved from three squares to six or more minis and I wanted studies that did. When I went through the research, I found 29 studies where researchers tested every feasible number of meals, from 1 to 10 per day, ensuring that daily calories remained the same regardless of the number of meals10-38. In all 29 studies, the result was the same: the number of meals eaten per day didn’t matter for fat or weight loss, only the calories did.

They even locked people in boxes called whole-body calorimeters to get precise measurements of metabolism to find a difference between eating a few big meals and many small meals. Again, no change in metabolism, energy expenditure or fat metabolism. The number of meals per day didn’t even affect what type of weight the participants lost—all of them lost the same amount of weight and the same amount of fat regardless of meal frequency. They tested about everything you can imagine in those studies with no effect. Some researches even went back and reassessed previous studies and looked at the food journal data that was ignored when the original researchers made their conclusions. All the participants that lost weight with mini-meals did so because they inadvertently cut calories.

Where’d the logic go bad? The logic, arguably, is okay. It’s the premise that’s flawed. The body does not trigger a hormonal cascade to signal possible starvation if it goes a few hours, or even several hours without eating. The body copes well with long spans of no food. The signals triggered by starvation—the ones that supposedly kick in after only a couple hours of not eating—take roughly three or four days of very low calories to activate39-48. They will not activate in two hours, or three or eight. The entire premise from which this idea is built is wrong.

A second place the logic goes wrong is with the romanticized idea that the body has some latent desire to be skinny when it’s happy. Give it all the food it craves and it will reward you by shedding the fat. The body doesn’t work that way. It turns out that longer stretches between meals makes the body release more fat to be burned as fuel27, 28, 37, 49, 51. What the body wants is to use fat if there’s no food coming in and store fat when there’s too much food. Such routine frequent feedings actually slows resting metabolism50 and lowers another component of metabolism called the thermic effect of food51-54.

There’s not much upside to mini meals when dieting and the downside of a slower metabolism is not enticing either, but for the average person, mini-meals are a pain. Granted, this is Elite, and you’re reading this because you’re willing to make the sacrifices and accept the challenges of being extra-ordinary, but for those of you who train others who might not be on the path to exceptional, telling them they must eat every few hours—as I’ve heard and read from trainers countless times—can set them up for failure. In the studies using multiple meals, more people quit because of having to eat too often rather than not enough. They found eating many meals inconvenient, and this despite having all their meals made and delivered to them by the people conducting the study30, 31, 33.

I’m not saying eating frequently isn’t without its uses. If you’re trying to create a long-lasting anabolic environment, then meal frequency can be very important. Many of these studies also showed the importance of eating on a schedule: eating at the same time each day increases insulin sensitivity55, and again, if you want a peak anabolic environment, you want increased insulin sensitivity. Multi-mini meals can also be good for hunger control56, 57, if hunger control is a problem. But for fat loss, it’s not logical; it’s senseless.

1.Wu H, Wu DY. Influence of feeding schedule on nitrogen utilization and excretion. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1950;74:78-82.
2.Cohn C. Meal-eating, nibbling, and body metabolism. J Am Diet Assoc. 1961 May;38:433-6.
3.Gwinup G, Kruger FA, Hamwi GJ. Metabolic effects of gorging versus nibbling. Ohio State Med J. 1964 Jul;60:663-6.
4.Bray GA. Lipogenesis in human adipose tissue: some effects of nibbling and gorging. J Clin Invest. 1972 Mar;51(3):537-48.
5.LeBlanc J, Mercier I, Nadeau A. Components of postprandial thermogenesis in relation to meal frequency in humans. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1993 Dec;71(12):879-83.
6.Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Vuksan V, Brighenti F, Cunnane SC, Rao AV, Jenkins AL, Buckley G, Patten R, Singer W, et al. Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency. N Engl J Med. 1989 Oct 5;321(14):929-34.
7.Antoine JM, Rohr R, Gagey MJ, Bleyer RE, Debry G. Feeding frequency and nitrogen balance in weight-reducing obese women. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr. 1984 Jan;38(1):31-8.
8.Ekmekcioglu C, Touitou Y. Chronobiological aspects of food intake and metabolism and their relevance on energy balance and weight regulation. Obes Rev. 2010 Jan 27.
9.Koletzko B, Toschke AM. Meal patterns and frequencies: do they affect body weight in children and adolescents? Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2010 Feb;50(2):100-5.
10.Kinabo JL, Durnin JV. Effect of meal frequency on the thermic effect of food in women. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1990 May;44(5):389-95.
12.Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70. Review.
13.Holmback U, Lowden A, Akerfeldt T, Lennernas M, Hambraeus L, Forslund J, Akerstedt T, Stridsberg M, Forslund A. The human body may buffer small differences in meal size and timing during a 24-h wake period provided energy balance is maintained. J Nutr. 2003 Sep;133(9):2748-55.
14.Jones PJ, Namchuk GL, Pederson RA. Meal frequency influences circulating hormone levels but not lipogenesis rates in humans. Metabolism. 1995 Feb;44(2):218-23.
15.Arnold L, Ball M, Mann J. Metabolic effects of alterations in meal frequency in hypercholesterolaemic individuals. Atherosclerosis. 1994 Aug;108(2):167-74.
16.Murphy MC, Chapman C, Lovegrove JA, Isherwood SG, Morgan LM, Wright JW, Williams CM. Meal frequency; does it determine postprandial lipaemia? Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996 Aug;50(8):491-7.
17.Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Muller HL, Hollomey S. Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency Ann Nutr Metab. 1987;31(2):88-97.
18.Mann J. Meal frequency and plasma lipids and lipoproteins. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S83-90. Review.
19.Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993 Jan;17(1):31-6.
21.Hill JO, Anderson JC, Lin D, Yakubu F. Effects of meal frequency on energy utilization in rats. Am J Physiol. 1988 Oct;255(4 Pt 2):R616-21.
23.Arnold L, Mann JI, Ball MJ. Metabolic effects of alterations in meal frequency in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1997 Nov;20(11):1651-4.
24.Rashidi MR, Mahboob S, Sattarivand R. Effects of nibbling and gorging on lipid profiles, blood glucose and insulin levels in healthy subjects. Saudi Med J. 2003 Sep;24(9):945-8.
25.Baker N, Palmquist DL, Learn DB. Equally rapid activation of lipogenesis in nibbling and gorging mice. J Lipid Res. 1976 Sep;17(5):527-35.
26.Baker N, Huebotter RJ. Lipogenic activation after nibbling and gorging in mice. J Lipid Res. 1973 Jan;14(1):87-94.
27.Sensi S, Capani F. Chronobiological aspects of weight loss in obesity: effects of different meal timing regimens. Chronobiol Int. 1987;4(2):251-61.
28.Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.
29.Holmback U, Lowden A, Akerfeldt T, Lennernas M, Hambraeus L, Forslund J, Akerstedt T, Stridsberg M, Forslund A. The human body may buffer small differences in meal size and timing during a 24-h wake period provided energy balance is maintained. J Nutr. 2003 Sep;133(9):2748-55.
30.[No authors listed] Effects of meal frequency during weight reduction. Nutr Rev. 1972 Jul;30(7):158-62. Review.
31.Young CM, Hutter LF, Scanlan SS, Rand CE, Lutwak L, Simko V. Metabolic effects of meal frequency on normal young men. J Am Diet Assoc. 1972 Oct;61(4):391-8.
32.Finkelstein B, Fryer BA. Meal frequency and weight reduction of young women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1971 Apr;24(4):465-8.
33.Young CM, Scanlan SS, Topping CM, Simko V, Lutwak L. Frequency of feeding, weight reduction, and body composition. J Am Diet Assoc. 1971 Nov;59(5):466-72.
34.Wadhwa PS, Young EA, Schmidt K, Elson CE, Pringle DJ. Metabolic consequences of feeding frequency in man. Am J Clin Nutr. 1973 Aug;26(8):823-30.
35.Romsos DR, Miller ER, Leveille GA. Influence of feeding frequency on body weight and glucose tolerance in the pig. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1978 Apr;157(4):528-30.
36.Bortz W, Wroldsen A, Issekutz B, Rodahl K. Weight loss and frequency of feeding. N Engl J Med. 1966;274:376-379.
37.Swindells YE, Holmes SA, Robinson MF. The metabolic response of young women to changes in the frequency of meals. Br J Nutr. 1968;22(4):667-680.
38.Wu H, Wu DY. Influence of feeding schedule on nitrogen utilization and excretion. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1950;74:78-82.
39.Chomard P, Vernhes G, Autissier N, Debry G. Serum concentrations of total and free thyroid hormones in moderately obese women during a six-week slimming cure. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1988 Apr;42(4):285-93.
40.Wisse BE, Campfield LA, Marliss EB, Morais JA, Tenenbaum R, Gougeon R. Effect of prolonged moderate and severe energy restriction and refeeding on plasma leptin concentrations in obese women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3):321-30.
41.Miyawaki T, Masuzaki H, Ogawa Y, Hosoda K, Nishimura H, Azuma N, Sugawara A, Masuda I, Murata M, Matsuo T, Hayashi T, Inoue G, Yoshimasa Y, Nakao K. Clinical implications of leptin and its potential humoral regulators in long-term low-calorie diet therapy for obese humans. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Jul;56(7):593-600.
42.Racette SB, Kohrt WM, Landt M, Holloszy JO. Response of serum leptin concentrations to 7 d of energy restriction in centrally obese African Americans with impaired or diabetic glucose tolerance. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Jul;66(1):33-7.
43.Samuels MH, Kramer P. Differential effects of short-term fasting on pulsatile thyrotropin, gonadotropin, and alpha-subunit secretion in healthy men–a clinical research center study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996 Jan;81(1):32-6.
44.Adami S, Ferrari M, Galvanini G, Cominacini L, Bruni F, Pelloso M, Lo Cascio V. Serum thyroid hormone concentrations and weight loss relationships in eight obese women during semistarvation. J Endocrinol Invest. 1979 Jul-Sep;2(3):271-4.
45.Garrel DR, Todd KS, Pugeat MM, Calloway DH. Hormonal changes in normal men under marginally negative energy balance. Am J Clin Nutr. 1984 Jun;39(6):930-6.
46.Bergendahl M, Vance ML, Iranmanesh A, Thorner MO, Veldhuis JD. Fasting as a metabolic stress paradigm selectively amplifies cortisol secretory burst mass and delays the time of maximal nyctohemeral cortisol concentrations in healthy men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996 Feb;81(2):692-9.
47.Cameron JL, Weltzin TE, McConaha C, Helmreich DL, Kaye WH. Slowing of pulsatile luteinizing hormone secretion in men after forty-eight hours of fasting. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1991 Jul;73(1):35-41.
49.Jones PJ, Leitch CA, Pederson RA. Meal-frequency effects on plasma hormone concentrations and cholesterol synthesis in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 1993 Jun;57(6):868-74.
50.Westerterp-Plantenga MS, Goris AH, Meijer EP, Westerterp KR. Habitual meal frequency in relation to resting and activity-induced energy expenditure in human subjects: the role of fat-free mass. Br J Nutr. 2003 Sep;90(3):643-9.
51.Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR, Kester AD. Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism. Br J Nutr. 1993 Jul;70(1):103-15.
52.Molnar D. The effect of meal frequency on postprandial thermogenesis in obese children. Padiatr Padol. 1992;27(6):177-81.
53.Tai MM, Castillo P, Pi-Sunyer FX. Meal size and frequency: effect on the thermic effect of food. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Nov;54(5):783-7.
54.Young JC. Meal size and frequency: effect on potentiation of the thermal effect of food by prior exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;70(5):437-41.
55.Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA. Regular meal frequency creates more appropriate insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles compared with irregular meal frequency in healthy lean women. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jul;58(7):1071-7.
56.Speechly DP, Rogers GG, Buffenstein R. Acute appetite reduction associated with an increased frequency of eating in obese males. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 Nov;23(11):1151-9.
57.Speechly DP, Buffenstein R. Greater appetite control associated with an increased frequency of eating in lean males. Appetite. 1999 Dec;33(3):285-97

[MuscleScience]

I agree, i dont think there is a shear superior number of meals per day as far as gaining muscle and losing fat beyond three meals a day. Big makes an important and distinctly specific point. Eating three huge meals a day is rather impractical for most and spreading those meals out is probably easier to get the planned number of calories in per day.