Smaller Meals Don't Help Weight Loss

Pancake Batter said:
The national dieticians conference is on the Gold Coast? Good place for it, full of fat tourists and skinny locals in bikinis.
Click to expand...

Haha so true...
 
maleficent said:
when I started my "lifestyle change" almost 2 years ago - and I've said this countless times here before -_ i never really ate unhealthily -just too much of healthy foods or seemingly healthy foods.. but breakfast for me would be a pot or three of coffee (no sugar or milk or cream) and a low fat muffin if I wanted food but that was rare... Now - I have breakfast every single day.. Doesnt make me any less hungry by noon -but just makes me feel better....
Click to expand...
I find eating a good breakfast gives me something to look forward to in the evening when I'm craving junk. I used to devour tons of chips (crisps for those in the UK), chipnuts, jerky, etc. in the evening. Now I just grab some water and look forward to the delicious breakfast I'm going to have.
 
I'm also a strong believer in the 6 meals per day and what no one has mentioned here is about insulin spikes. Having large meals causes large spikes and promotes fat generation where as having smaller meals keeps the insulin consistent and promotes lean mass.

But as people have said it's whatever works for you. Having a simple rule of 6 smaller meals per day makes the dieter more conscious in what and when they're eating and also makes it easier to follow a calorie plan. I wouldn't say it's necessary but I believe it's an easy solution to promote self control, which to me seems very beneficial.

Timothy
 
Last edited:
I pretty much ignore that school of thought. I've done both the 6 small meals and the 3 meals a day, and lost weight both ways. Intaking 1800 calories is the same in 6 meals or 3.

For me eating 6 times a day is time consuming and unrealistic when you are on the go. And grabbing a bag of popcorn or a small french fry isn't what I mean. An apple and a low fat yogurt or something like that is a small meal.

Everyone is different, what works for some, doesn't work for all.
 
Timothyfields said:
I'm also a strong believer in the 6 meals per day and what no one has mentioned here is about insulin spikes. Having large meals causes large spikes and promotes fat generation where as having smaller meals keeps the insulin consistent and promotes lean mass.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting one simple thing.

Insulin and fat storage don't really matter in the face of a hypocaloric diet.

People like to brush right over that small fact as if it's meaningless... when that's the furthest thing from the truth.

Using the insulin model of lipogenesis is *really* outdated in terms of research.

For simplicity's sake:

Less frequent meals often lead to greater fat storage following a meal than more frequent meals. However, less frequent meals have a longer period between feedings, so you have to use fat over that period to maintain energy balance.

More frequent feedings = less fat stored, but less fat used inbetween meals.

+2 - 2 = 0

or

+1 - 1 = 0

I saw that you posted a link (a good one at that regarding a Rippetoe workout) from bodybuilding.com's forum. If you spend a lot of time over there I'm sure you know Alan Aragon. He's treated as God over on that site. Though he is a brilliant guy, it's quite comical actually.

Taken straight from bb.com forum from AA:

No, my meal frequency rec's haven't changed. I still advocate a minimum of 3 meals on days off & a minimum of 4 meals on training days for most people. However, I will concede that there are individuals who will do very well on a Martin Berkhan-style 16/8hr fast/feed cycle due to the nature of their lifestyle & training schedules. Of course, some people won't do well on it, especially if they have issues with glucose metabolism (chronic hypoglycemia, reactive hypoglycemia), folks with those metabolic issues trying primarily to gain weight, folks who train during the early part of the day, etc. That said, I personally was never a staunch advocate of eating every 2-3 hours. I mainly believe that meal frequency should be tailored to the individual's goals & tolerances, since meal frequency overrated as shit for influencing metabolism anyway. And you're right that condensing your day's eating into a 3-5 hr window isn't optimal and can foster disordred eating. It also goes both ways, since eating every 2 hours on the dot is pathological behavior as well. Hopefully that made sense.
Click to expand...

But as people have said it's whatever works for you.
Click to expand...

This is the golden nugget right here.

After working with a large number of people, it's quite obvious that there is no right/wrong way to slice it. For some less meals will work better. For others more meals will work better. You know this which is obvious from the last point in your post.

I just wanted to elaborate on the insulin comments, primarily.
 
busy91 said:
I pretty much ignore that school of thought. I've done both the 6 small meals and the 3 meals a day, and lost weight both ways. Intaking 1800 calories is the same in 6 meals or 3.

For me eating 6 times a day is time consuming and unrealistic when you are on the go. And grabbing a bag of popcorn or a small french fry isn't what I mean. An apple and a low fat yogurt or something like that is a small meal.

Everyone is different, what works for some, doesn't work for all.
Click to expand...

A bag of popcorn can have a lot of benefits ;)

One bag of Orville Redenbocker 94% Fat free has a good amount of protein and fiber. And about 220 calories for the full size bag. Pretty good stuff if you ask me, and that could replace an entire meal (filling wise) for some people on the go. Carbs, Proteins, Fats all included.
 
Timothyfields said:
Having large meals causes large spikes and promotes fat generation where as having smaller meals keeps the insulin consistent and promotes lean mass.
Click to expand...
Being in a caloric deficit prevents you from storing fat; therefore, whether you have 6 meals a day or 3 meals a day, if the calories you eat are lower than what you use, you'll burn up stored fat.

I suppose I should've read the rest of the thread before I replied. Steve hit the nail on the head... as usual.
 
Last edited:
Timothyfields said:
You're very correct Steve, I seem to be stuck in a body building mindset at the moment. Good catch

Timothy.
Click to expand...

It's easy to think in those terms, Timothy. The idea that insulin=fat is still crammed down our throats even from respected authorities. And brotelligence (primarily what you find over on bb.com) lives and dies by the 6+ meals per day mentality.

It's an easy thing to buy into.
 
Steve said:
It's easy to think in those terms, Timothy. The idea that insulin=fat is still crammed down our throats even from respected authorities. And brotelligence (primarily what you find over on bb.com) lives and dies by the 6+ meals per day mentality.

It's an easy thing to buy into.
Click to expand...


I still like the eat when you're ACTUALLY hungry method best (while keep calories in mind). If you can't get your focus off of food because your stomach hurts, you should eat. If you're not hungry, don't force yourself to eat.

I don't like the idea of strict eating schedules. I don't think it's practical. My lifestyle will change many times from now, until I die, and I don't handle change well as it is. I do know though, that if I go with the flow (in regards of eating now), that is something I can do forever.

Maybe I'm the only one who feels like that.
 
LowFatMilk said:
I still like the eat when you're ACTUALLY hungry method best (while keep calories in mind). If you can't get your focus off of food because your stomach hurts, you should eat. If you're not hungry, don't force yourself to eat.
Click to expand...

But what happens when you're body has been telling you to eat and has no signs of stopping yet it's only 2pm in the afternoon and you've hit your caloric limit?

That's a very real situation for many who go by the "eat when I'm hungry" mentality.

In me experience it doesn't work for most. More planning is necessary. Not always, of course. Just speaking on the averages here.

I don't like the idea of strict eating schedules. I don't think it's practical. My lifestyle will change many times from now, until I die, and I don't handle change well as it is. I do know though, that if I go with the flow (in regards of eating now), that is something I can do forever.
Click to expand...

I eat 5-6 meals per day, but I wouldn't say it's strict.

If I miss a meal or have a piece of cake in between, I'm not shitting my pants worrying about it. I just move on. I have a rough outline of how many meals I'll eat each day and what those meals will contain.

That's what has worked for me most. And I have a volatile schedule.

Each of us are different though.

Some people can make intelligent decisions going with the flow.

Others can't.
 
Steve said:
But what happens when you're body has been telling you to eat and has no signs of stopping yet it's only 2pm in the afternoon and you've hit your caloric limit?

That's a very real situation for many who go by the "eat when I'm hungry" mentality.

In me experience it doesn't work for most. More planning is necessary. Not always, of course. Just speaking on the averages here.



I eat 5-6 meals per day, but I wouldn't say it's strict.

If I miss a meal or have a piece of cake in between, I'm not shitting my pants worrying about it. I just move on. I have a rough outline of how many meals I'll eat each day and what those meals will contain.

That's what has worked for me most. And I have a volatile schedule.

Each of us are different though.

Some people can make intelligent decisions going with the flow.

Others can't.
Click to expand...


But then you have to really question their ability to tell if they're hungry. If they're hoarding food non-stop, then I doubt they have the ability to really tell when they're hungry, or when they're not. In which case, I wouldn't reccomend that situation for them.

But then you also have to question what they're eating to max out their calories by 2 pm, (or how many calories their daily allowance is).

That is to say, I didn't say what you want when you're hungry.

But I also said it was something I liked. So that covers me.
 
My point is most people's minds and bodies don't work in a way that will abide by what you're saying.

Sorry if I didn't say it so succinctly before.

This is based on my experience, solely. Well that and the fact that if most minds and bodies worked like this obesity wouldn't be an epidemic.
 
Steve said:
My point is most people's minds and bodies don't work in a way that will abide by what you're saying.

Sorry if I didn't say it so succinctly before.

This is based on my experience, solely. Well that and the fact that if most minds and bodies worked like this obesity wouldn't be an epidemic.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not to the extent we're having it. Unfortunately the hideous nutrition charts on the back of most foods aren't helping either. But that's irrelevant.
 
LowFatMilk said:
Perhaps not to the extent we're having it.
Click to expand...

What do you mean?

Unfortunately the hideous nutrition charts on the back of most foods aren't helping either. But that's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

How hideous?

In addition and related to this topic... even if the nutrition facts were way off, anyone with some logic (which seems to be lacking as of late in modern society) would realize, "Hey, based on the nutrition facts I'm eating properly and ingesting 2500 calories per day. However, I'm gaining weight, so I'll reduce from this *supposed* 2500 calorie intake."

No?
 
LowFatMilk said:
Perhaps not to the extent we're having it. Unfortunately the hideous nutrition charts on the back of most foods aren't helping either. But that's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't understand this statement about the labels either. IF you mean by the percentages and it relating to the 2000 calorie diet... than I suppose, but it does say it there. So if people are reading they should have enough intelligence to interpret those things. I personally NEVER look at percentages because they are way off anyways.
 
Steve said:
What do you mean?



How hideous?

In addition and related to this topic... even if the nutrition facts were way off, anyone with some logic (which seems to be lacking as of late in modern society) would realize, "Hey, based on the nutrition facts I'm eating properly and ingesting 2500 calories per day. However, I'm gaining weight, so I'll reduce from this *supposed* 2500 calorie intake."

No?
Click to expand...

I mean that obesity would still be an issue for some people. Just not as many as are suffering from it now.

And as far as the label thing goes, I'm just making reference to the fact that our society has a lot of high calorie, high fat, high crap foods. Not the label its self. Sorry about the misunderstandING :(
 
Last edited:
LowFatMilk said:
I mean that obesity would still be an issue for some people. Just not as many as are suffering from it now.

And as far as the label thing goes, I'm just making reference to the fact that our society has a lot of high calorie, high fat, high crap foods. Not the label its self. Sorry about the misunderstandING :(
Click to expand...

Ohhhh, totally different debate I think.

And obesity is at an all time high... so I might not follow your argument that not as many are suffering from it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top