Do any of you eat 3 meals a day?

[bud_2005]

Because of my work schedule (7:30-5 with a 30 minute lunch) it is not convenient for me to eat the recommended 6 meals a day. Is my metabolism really going to slow down that much and become obese if I only eat 3 meals a day with a snack mixed in?

 

[KontrollerX]

I read a forum where a certified personal trainer said there is no conclusively proven extra metabolic benefit from spreading the intake to six meals a day.

Three meals is fine.

I've done that plenty of times with great success when I needed to lose a few extra pounds.

Daily calorie intake is all you need to be worried about not how many meals you break that up into.

I think the six meals a day thing is recommended a lot because people don't know its a myth regarding metabolism being improved by doing it this way.

The only real benefit I could see to it is if you are just starting to lose weight and are used to eating a lot of times in a day.

In that way eating six meals could give you a sort of psychological comfort and maybe keep dieting hunger pains from creeping up too badly since you will be spreading the caloric controlled amount out throughout the day just when your stomach starts to grumble for food lol.

 

[jaaku]

really? I've heard differently...

it's not so much about the calorie intake, but moreso your metabolism, and how much your body can take.

For people who have a slower metabolic rate, it makes sense to eat 6, smaller meals a day, instead of 3. for those with a higher rate, maybe not so much.

Secondly, i read somewhere on here your body can only process so much protein at a time. so anything else, and your body will send it to the waste section of your body.

Of course, I'm not a certified trainer or nutritionist, so I hope someone who is will confirm/debunk my knowledge. This is just what I've heard in the locker room, and from a few people.

 

[I-tallionStallion]

hahahhaha what you don't have breaks?....eat six times a day - its called tupperware...

...AND who said it was going to be convenient to do this! Do it right or you won't see the results your looking for as fast as you'd like.

If you are on 'CORRECT' bulking diet...I'D LOVE TO SEE YOU EAT ALL THAT FOOD IN THREE MEALS!

 

[Quagmire911]

It's more about what is optimal.

You can lose fat on 3 meals a day, just not as well as on 6 meals a day. You are more likley to lose muscle as you will slip into catabolism for some of the day.

You can build muscle on 3 meals a day, however if you spread the nutrients out over the day than your body will have a more consistent "growth" signal if you will. More anabolism.

Also as Stallion said I'd hate to try and get 110g+ of protein in every meal, not to mention trying to fit in carb and fat sources.

And btw what do you think everyone else that has to work does? You have to compromise. If you are allowed a bottle of water then you should be allowed a shake.

Quagmire

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CONVENIENT about eating every 3-4 hours.

You're gonna have to learn to be non-reasonable when it comes to eating for fitness.

*Non-reasonable means that you have to purchase a cooler and a trusty can opener and carry them with you throughout the day.

*Non-reasonable means that you have to get up a few minutes early every day before work/school and pack your can opener and nutrient-rich foods into your newly purchased cooler-- foods which you can eat and digest easily and in minimal time (READ: tuna, rice, almonds).

*Non-reasonable means that you must STOP what you are doing every 3-4 hours and EAT QUICKLY. Yes, it's a pain in the azz, but if you've packed your cooler with canned tuna, rice, and almonds, you will be able to eat within 10 minutes.

Stop resisting the fact that you have to eat 5-6 times a day if you want to change your body. There's simply no way around it.

We all struggle to eat properly. Most of have jobs, school, etc. that make eating 5-6 times a day extremely challenging, but we do it because we're exceptionally committed.

I completely agree and it's not as hard as you think if you focus on eating healthy, natural foods that need little to no preparation. Fruits, nuts, soups, sandwiches, nutrition bars and protein shakes are great filler meals. Plus like you said, eating more frequently lessens the need to spend more time eating larger meals.

In addition, your body can more easily digest the smaller meals than having the huge ones hang out in your gut trying to digest all at once. The one drawback is that you may find yourself going to the bathroom more frequently but that's a good thing, it keeps your middrift slim and you won't have that bloated feeling.

 

[mrRuckus]

It's more about what is optimal.

You can lose fat on 3 meals a day, just not as well as on 6 meals a day. You are more likley to lose muscle as you will slip into catabolism for some of the day.

Is this actually shown anywhere? Even anecdotally by a lot of people? I mean i eat 5-6-7 meals a day depending on things, but that's mainly because it's hard to eat that much food in 3.

This gets claimed all the time, but it seems like it's just a lot of conjecture and people repeating what they heard somewhere else.

Just the fact that meat takes forever to digest seems to me you're rarely going to go into catabolism as the aminos slowly stream from it all day.

Really I'm not arguing it... but is there any information about this other than just claims? Not necessarily studies because i surely don't need them to believe something... but any sort of information other than repeating what someone else said. Like "it keeps your metabolism higher!" Says who? Significantly? My body temperature seems to be about the same all the time. You're saying it'll drop below 98.6 if I only eat 3 meals a day? And since i'm eating 6 why isn't higher than 98.6 since that's the normal temp? The only thing that budges it is after working out. Body temp is the measurement of metabolism isn't it? More calories burned = more heat.

It really sounds very iffy to me. Especially when there are diets like the warrior diet and diets of that ilk where people take off a lot of fat and do bulks and recomps eating once or twice a day. Or even do stuff like have 4000 calories on a workout day and then 1500 calories on offdays.

I don't claim to know anything about this either way, but I would like to know where this claim originates from.

 

[Quiksilver]

The only reason I can think of is because the sheer quantity of food is hard to eat in only three meals.

Building on top of that, it's pretty well known that when you feel "full", the food you eat right afterwards is more likely to be stored as fat. If you eat 6 meals rather than 3, you're less likely to become "full" and put your body into fat storage mode.

Also, the process of digestion by the body takes a whole heap of energy. If you're eating constantly through the day, you're keeping the lights on, so to speak.

 

[mrRuckus]

Building on top of that, it's pretty well known that when you feel "full", the food you eat right afterwards is more likely to be stored as fat.

It is? Also more likely to be stored as muscle, no? And so what if that's true? Wouldn't that fat just be taken back out later if the body needs energy the rest of the day? I mean, it's a constant process of fat in and then fat back out and if that's kept equal everything is good (assuming not trying to lose fat overall). You guys are just presuming things to be true and then drawing conclusions from them. You can't do that in this context if you're tryin to convince someone. I don't easily accept the assumption that extra calories in a meal will just go 'permanently' to fat.

Also, the process of digestion by the body takes a whole heap of energy. If you're eating constantly through the day, you're keeping the lights on, so to speak.

But if there's more food in the digestive system at once then it has to work more and longer than if there was less at the moment... ?? See this ignores the part of why is my body temp the same if there's extra mechanical things going on inside me from eating more often. There has to be extra heat as a by product.

Ruckus, I like your questioning conventional wisdom.

Is there proof? Well, maybe not, but my knowledge obtained via reading magazines, listening to personal trainers, and talking to just about every buffed guy or gal that I know invariably advocate eating 5-6 meals a day.

I personally have never read a magazine or talked to an exceptionally fit person who advocates eating 3 times a day for muscle gain/fat loss.

My personal experience also shows that eating 5-6 meals per day results in optimal muscle gain and fat loss.

So, yes, I say that a lot of people can, and do, prove that eating 5-6 times a day is best.

Well yeah they claim and claim and claim but it seems more like it's just taken on a life of its own and they'll all look at each other and be like hmm why do i believe this. Oh, someone else told me and it's what i did. WHY do they say eat 6 meals a day? I mean the explanation sounds good. "Faster metabolism and no catabolism" but sounding reasonable and it actually happening aren't the same thing.

Advocating "3 meals a day" is completely different from advocating 6 meals a day. I'm questioning more does it really matter? There's a big difference between advocating 6 meals a day and just ignoring it completely and not telling people a number since it doesn't matter, if in reality it doesn't.

You've actually sat there with all other variables the same and ate 3 meals compared to 6 meals and you noticeably gain more muscle and gain less fat?

Not saying 3 is better at all but i question if 6 is sooo much better that people have to get stressed about it. If it's 1 or 2% difference it's not worth getting worked up over.

I'm not asking for proof, but rather a number of real anecdotes where it's plain as day of people who have done both ways with all other things equal. Sure I used to eat 3 meals a day 3 years ago but my training is a hell of a lot better now so i can't just magically attribute it to 6 meals a day when 3 could've given me the same results.

I read a forum where a certified personal trainer said there is no conclusively proven extra metabolic benefit from spreading the intake to six meals a day.

See here's from kontrollerx earlier in the thread. I've seen that kind of thing a number of times in different places, even by respected trainers who question this. I don't know how strict "proven" is there as there's proof beyond a doubt and "true as far as we know" and "looks that way, duddin it?"


Again I don't know. I don't claim anything. 6 probably is better. I just want to know where this idea comes from and why.. and a "why" that's real and not just something people thought up as a rational explanation that may or may not be the real reason.

Now if you don't mind i'm gonna go bang my head on the wall at the thought of "low carb fruit."

 

[EFFORT]

It is? And so what if that's true? Wouldn't that fat just be taken back out later if the body needs energy the rest of the day? I mean, it's a constant process of fat in and then fat back out and if that's kept equal everything is good (assuming not trying to lose fat overall). You guys are just presuming things to be true and then drawing conclusions to them. You can't do that in this context if you're tryin to convince someone. I don't easily accept the assumption that extra calories in a meal will just go 'permanently' to fat.





But if there's more food in the digestive system at once then it has to work more and longer than if there was less at the moment... ?? See this ignores the part of why is my body temp the same if there's extra mechanical things going on inside me from eating more often. There has to be extra heat as a by product.




Well yeah they claim and claim and claim but it seems more like it's just taken on a life of its own and they'll all look at each other and be like hmm why do i believe this. Oh, someone else told me and it's what i did. WHY do they say eat 6 meals a day? I mean the explanation sounds good. "Faster metabolism and no catabolism" but sounding reasonable and it actually happening aren't the same thing.

Advocating "3 meals a day" is completely different from advocating 6 meals a day. I'm questioning more does it really matter? There's a big difference between advocating 6 meals a day and just ignoring it completely and not telling people a number since it doesn't matter, if in reality it doesn't.

You've actually sat there with all other variables the same and ate 3 meals compared to 6 meals and you noticeably gain more muscle and gain less fat?

Not saying 3 is better at all but i question if 6 is sooo much better that people have to get stressed about it. If it's 1 or 2% difference it's not worth getting worked up over.

I'm not asking for proof, but rather a number of real anecdotes where it's plain as day of people who have done both ways with all other things equal. Sure I used to eat 3 meals a day 3 years ago but my training is a hell of a lot better now so i can't just magically attribute it to 6 meals a day when 3 could've given me the same results.




See here's from kontrollerx earlier in the thread. I've seen that kind of thing a number of times in different places, even by respected trainers who question this. I don't know how strict "proven" is there as there's proof beyond a doubt and "true as far as we know" and "looks that way, duddin it?"


Again I don't know. I don't claim anything. 6 probably is better. I just want to know where this idea comes from and why.. and a "why" that's real and not just something people thought up as a rational explanation that may or may not be the real reason.

Now if you don't mind i'm gonna go bang my head on the wall at the thought of "low carb fruit."

well i guess this is a rational explanation but no way in hell i'm getting all the food i eat in a day down in 3 meals.

 

[mrRuckus]

well i guess this is a rational explanation but no way in hell i'm getting all the food i eat in a day down in 3 meals.

Not really the point since I already said the same thing. But it is possible. I tried those other diets before with like 2 meals of 4000 (total) calories and it's not really that hard especially if it's not a looooot of bulky carbs. I mean 2 lbs of meat wasn't too bad if you started with about nothing in you to begin with.

And 3000 some calories at 6 meals a day used to be WAYYYY too much too. Not I do it easily everyday without feeling too full.

 

[EFFORT]

Not really the point since I already said the same thing. But it is possible. I tried those other diets before with like 2 meals of 4000 (total) calories and it's not really that hard especially if it's not a looooot of bulky carbs. I mean 2 lbs of meat wasn't too bad if you started with about nothing in you to begin with.

And 3000 some calories at 6 meals a day used to be WAYYYY too much too. Not I do it easily everyday without feeling too full.

Wow 2 meals of 4k cals? What was it beef and a BIG ass shake?

 

[Mad Manic]

Is this actually shown anywhere? Even anecdotally by a lot of people? I mean i eat 5-6-7 meals a day depending on things, but that's mainly because it's hard to eat that much food in 3.

Yes, why don't you read up instead of questioning it. It's common sense anyway. More meals speed up metabolism which minimises fat gains therefore calorie suprlus leads to muscle gains. Also the body can only absorb so much in one sitting which links to the point before.

MM

 

[I-tallionStallion]

no way....thats a lot of food for 2 meals...its sickening and gross and i'd probably throw up haha

Why torture yourself? I remember in a college health class for training and dieting that they told us it is better to eat more than three meals a day. Not to mention it was written in the book. So somewhere along the lines someone must have done a study. I should really find that book later haha.

To me it makes sense, the more meals you eat, the more energy you have, the faster your metabolism. If i eat only 2 meals a day, i feel sluggish and unable to perform in the gym. What i would do was I'd have 3-4 meals and a couple protein shakes thrown in between them meals, I lost plenty of weight. Infact when i was dieting, if i didn't spread it out the meals bi-hourly I was terribly hungry all day long, but because i did it - IT was much more of a comfortable dieting process.

This kindof reminds me of a debate i had with my friend about eating 1-2 large meals, to eating 4-5 small meals a day. He claimed eating like that helped him lose him 40 lbs, he worked out generally the same as i did, but i looked infinitely better after losing 15 lbs more than him - while he looked like jello.

 

[Throttle]

most of this talk of speeding up or slowing down your metabolism by how much you eat or don't eat is total nonsense, and people believe it because it gets repeated often enough.

either you believe that many meals will help and you will make the commitment, or else you won't. all the shaggy dog stories about why it helps you build muscle or lose fat are nonsense.

i have certainly lost fat & built muscle eating fewer than 5 meals per day. if i were lifting competitively (bb or powerlifting) would i eat AT LEAST 5. it all comes back to your goals. some of you guys need to stop talking about what's "obviously proven" (very little, in fact) and spend more time figuring out what's appropriate for YOU and not try to directly apply it to others.

 

[spoon_creature]

In regards to the "why isn't my body temperature rising?" bit: please, educate yourself. Your body temperature does not just go up and down depending on what's happening in your body, it constantly aims for homeostasis, your temperature should ALWAYS be around 98.6 because this is the optimum temperature for all of your bodily functions to, well, function. By your logic, wouldn't people with naturally higher metabolisms also have higher average body temp? 98.6 for everybody, period. It's your hypothalamus that decides that, not what's going on inside your stomach: you are not a reptile. I honestly giggled to myself at the thought of someone eating, taking their temperature, working out, taking their temperature, taking a dump, taking their temperature...

Your body doesn't just produce "heat", it uses electro-chemical energy derived from food and fat to chug-a-lug along.

You're not uncomfortably full, you're not groggy from an insane insulin crash etc. etc.

The reason why 3 meals a day is the standard is because of its convenience, you couldn't shut down factories an extra 3 times a day just for meals...nowadays it's easier to shove something in your gob while tapping in an office. It makes more sense in an evolutionary way as well because humans more likely could only find small amounts of food throughout the day...they didn't find bacon and eggs sitting together too often...they would just graze when they found food.

All of those calories in 2 meals? That sounds like a gut-busting vomit-burp festival. And yes, from personal experience, weight loss (with the same training program) has been infinitely more successful with 5-6 meals than 2-3.

Brush up on your physiology, dude.

*re-lurk*

 

[bud_2005]

I work as a welder so its not like I'm sitting by a computer with a fridge sitting right by me all day. The reason I would prefer 3 is because I have enough trouble of thinking of meal ideas for 3 let alone 6.

 

[Quagmire911]

I work as a welder so its not like I'm sitting by a computer with a fridge sitting right by me all day. The reason I would prefer 3 is because I have enough trouble of thinking of meal ideas for 3 let alone 6.

I wouldn't bother with any of this then, doesn't sound like you're willing.

 

[EFFORT]

The reason I would prefer 3 is because I have enough trouble of thinking of meal ideas for 3 let alone 6.

thats a lame excuse

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

thats a lame excuse

Yeah, the in-between meals could easily include good stuff that comes in a package and can be stowed in a locker or fridge with little or no need for preparation.