# Eating 6 small meals every 2-3 hours? A BB Myth?



## juggernaut2005 (Jul 9, 2007)

I saw a thread ad BB.com saying that the whole concept of 6 small meals/day every 2-4 hrs is a myth and doesn't increase metabolism etc.   What are your thoughts?


----------



## SheLifts (Jul 9, 2007)

i'm not sure of the hormonal aspect of it increasing metabolism, but it helps to maintain and stabilize blood sugar levels leading to a smaller chance of overeating and having your sugar levels bottom out then skyrocket.


----------



## soxmuscle (Jul 9, 2007)

So what does BB.com call for?  To get your calories in three large meals?  That logic is downright retarded.

Whether or not BB.com says its a myth is irrelevant, I'd rather eat 500 calories 6-8 times daily, than 1000+ calories 3 times daily.


----------



## SheLifts (Jul 9, 2007)

plus, can't your body only accimilate about 700-800 calories at a time? i believe i read that somewhere.


----------



## juggernaut2005 (Jul 9, 2007)

soxmuscle said:


> So what does BB.com call for?  To get your calories in three large meals?  That logic is downright retarded.
> 
> Whether or not BB.com says its a myth is irrelevant, I'd rather eat 500 calories 6-8 times daily, than 1000+ calories 3 times daily.



Right and the reasoning behind this was to supply your body with a constant supply of nutrients and fire up your fat burning furnace but the stuff I read on BB.com says thats a myth.. so if you can eat 3 meals at 1000cals/meal its as good as 6 meals at 500cals/meal in terms of raising metabolism


----------



## min0 lee (Jul 9, 2007)

I find eating 6 small meals leaves less bloated 3 big meals.


----------



## P-funk (Jul 9, 2007)

There are a number of things to consider when looking at this question.

a) research suggests that the amount of meals you eat does not matter as much as the total calories at the end of the day.  I can spread that out over 5-6 small meals or, I can eat 3 large square meals.  Either way, research showed that there was no difference between the two.

b) Taking that into consideration, if I am eating 4000 calories a day, obvisouly, 6 small meals a day is going to be much easier than eating 3 huge meals a day.  So, that is one reason why you might consider the smaller, more frequent feedings.

c) A female on the other hand, who might be eating very low calories, may not want to eat 6 meals a day.  For example, 6 meals of 200 calories would be extremely small meals and might not be satisfying at all.  So, they may opt to eat 3 larger meals to feel like they are actually eating something.

d) the idea that your body goes into starvation mode if you don't eat after 3 hours is pretty ridiculous, so we can throw that one out.  Also, given that the research suggests 24-hour metabolism is more important than the number of meals, it doesn't make a difference.

e) Probably the most important part of the 5-6 small meals and the reason why I suggest it as being the best option is because it keeps people from being hungry and snacking.  If I eat 3 meals a day, no matter how large, the length of time between those meals is significant enough that I will get hungry, snack and then increase my daily total caloric intake, ultimately throwing off my diet.  Also, those that have a large length of time between meals tend to get hungry and eat crap food and make crap choices because they are so hungry.  It is mentally more satisfying to eat more frequent meals.


So, from a physiological stand point, eating the smaller meals doesn't matter as much as 24-hour metabolism does.  From an overall health and mental standpoint, the more frequent meals appear to be the way to go.


----------



## juggernaut2005 (Jul 9, 2007)

P-funk said:


> There are a number of things to consider when looking at this question.
> 
> a) research suggests that the amount of meals you eat does not matter as much as the total calories at the end of the day.  I can spread that out over 5-6 small meals or, I can eat 3 large square meals.  Either way, research showed that there was no difference between the two.
> *So if one has the will power to eat 3, 1000cals meals spread out every 6hrs (9AM, 3PM & 9PM) vs 6, 500cal meals, as long as the total calories add up, it has no effect on metabolism etc?  Wow, thanks for clarification *
> ...


----------



## Double D (Jul 9, 2007)

juggernaut2005 said:


> Right and the reasoning behind this was to supply your body with a constant supply of nutrients and fire up your fat burning furnace but the stuff I read on BB.com says thats a myth.. so if you can eat 3 meals at 1000cals/meal its as good as 6 meals at 500cals/meal in terms of raising metabolism



I think your biggest problem is your reading things off of bb.com.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jul 9, 2007)

Eat THREE meals a day, properly balanced with the right nutritious foods, and work out hard and you'll get some results. But...you'll get about half the results you'd get from six meals a day and it will take you twice as long to get there. If you have less than ???elite??? genetics or a naturally slow metabolism, you may have serious difficulty on only three meals. And if you miss even a single meal, then you???re causing metabolic damage.

SIX small meals a day is optimal. Two simple facts of physiology will explain why: (1) It takes about three hours to digest each meal, and (2) protein (amino acids) lasts about three hours in the bloodstream. If you sleep eight hours per night, that leaves 16 waking hours in the day. Six meals over 16 hours equals one meal every 2.7 hours. If your goal is five meals, then your target is one meal every 3.2 hours. Average it up for simplicity, and that???s where the guideline of one meal every three hours comes from. Five
meals a day seems to be the optimal number for women and six meals is ideal for men. The difference is because men require on average, about 600-900 calories per day more than women


----------



## Jodi (Jul 9, 2007)

Good posts in here. 

If you can get away with 3 meals a day and not feel starving and that's what you prefer, then by all means go ahead.  It won't effect your results either way.  

There are a couple things I want to point out:

Hunger - the reason you are hunger every 3-4 hours is because that is when your stomach has completed it's digestion of the previous meal and has moved it on to the small intestine for absorption.  So now your stomach is empty again and an empty stomach is a hungry stomach

Proper Digestion - If you eat a huge meal the chances of proper digestion are slim.  When there is a lot of food in front of us, we tend to eat faster.  We don't chew properly, we don't take our time.  Now you have large pieces of food in your stomach and your stomach and small intestine have to try to break it all down.  In many cases it can't and your vitamin/mineral and protein absorption is less than perfect.  So now you've wasted your time because your body didn't absorb all the nutrients from the food you just fed it.


----------



## sensamilia (Jul 9, 2007)

eating 3 massive meals doesnt provide ur body with a constant slow stream of insulin which leads to shit development, hence the fact that diabetics have shit results compared to non diabetics. Plus if ur diet consists of about 20% fat and u squeeze that in thouse 3 square meals, ur ganna get  fat, fast.


----------



## P-funk (Jul 9, 2007)




----------



## sensamilia (Jul 9, 2007)

steady stream of insulin=igf.  
20% dietry fat shoved in 3 meals with massive insulin surge=fat storin combination. Yes?


----------



## P-funk (Jul 9, 2007)

20% of fat means jack shit unless you know what the calories are.

24-hour metabolism trumps all in the long run.


----------



## danny81 (Jul 9, 2007)

can i just eat one huge meal a day? like 6000 cals?


----------



## sensamilia (Jul 9, 2007)

danny81 said:


> can i just eat one huge meal a day? like 6000 cals?



sure, most things can be done if u put ur mind to it. But y wud u want to?


----------



## Jodi (Jul 9, 2007)

sensamilia said:


> eating 3 massive meals doesnt provide ur body with a constant slow stream of insulin which leads to shit development, hence the fact that diabetics have shit results compared to non diabetics. Plus if ur diet consists of about 20% fat and u squeeze that in thouse 3 square meals, ur ganna get  fat, fast.


----------



## soxmuscle (Jul 9, 2007)

Jodi said:


>



That's what I said.  One of the strongest guys on this site, Duncans Donuts, always raved about the benefits of added insulin from being a diabetic.  I'm seeing it firsthand with my brother.


----------



## Hoglander (Jul 9, 2007)

danny81 said:


> can i just eat one huge meal a day? like 6000 cals?



I can but I know I'm different than normal. Being full is just something that lasts until you aren't full. That's short lived is you miss meals.  You do it(big meals) to catch up because you had a fast couple of days and you know you are behind. It happens to me a couple times a month.

In a perfect world I guess I'd have an a needle in my body 24/7 that provided constant replenishment.


----------



## Hoglander (Jul 9, 2007)

soxmuscle said:


> That's what I said.  One of the strongest guys on this site, Duncans Donuts, always raved about the benefits of added insulin from being a diabetic.  I'm seeing it firsthand with my brother.


 

Jodi is a man??


----------



## Rocco32 (Jul 9, 2007)

soxmuscle said:


> So what does BB.com call for?  To get your calories in three large meals?  That logic is downright retarded.
> 
> Whether or not BB.com says its a myth is irrelevant, I'd rather eat 500 calories 6-8 times daily, than 1000+ calories 3 times daily.



Wow, what a convincing argument. I've been wondering the same thing the Author asked and this post convinced me that I must eat many times throughout the day. Thanks for this contribution. If I though otherwise, regardless of my motives I must be retarded


----------



## soxmuscle (Jul 9, 2007)

Rocco32 said:


> Wow, what a convincing argument. I've been wondering the same thing the Author asked and this post convinced me that I must eat many times throughout the day. Thanks for this contribution. If I though otherwise, regardless of my motives I must be retarded





Drunk ass.


----------



## soxmuscle (Jul 9, 2007)

Hoglander said:


> Jodi is a man??



No.  Duncans Donuts is a man, like my post stated.


----------



## Rocco32 (Jul 9, 2007)

soxmuscle said:


> Drunk ass.



Yeah   Please don't take anything I say tonight personally!!!!


----------



## soxmuscle (Jul 9, 2007)

Rocco32 said:


> Yeah   Please don't take anything I say tonight personally!!!!



We all have those nights.  You still got five more minutes Central time, quick, grab another drink.


----------



## Hoglander (Jul 9, 2007)

Sorry, I thought some guy named Jodi liked donuts. You are right again, danny81 or socks or whatever you kids call yourself these days, burp.


----------



## mboylan86 (Jul 10, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> I find eating 6 small meals leaves less bloated 3 big meals.



i agree, i couldnt eat 3 bigs meals, i'd be bloated as fuck


----------



## Plateau_Max (Jul 10, 2007)

I just think balancing my macros throughout the day is a lot easier when I'm not making 3 huge meals.  I find it easier to specifically target carb protein or fat for specific meals of there are more small meals, like having a 600 calorie post workout shake as one of my meals for instance.


----------



## Valias (Jul 10, 2007)

If i have smaller meals i find i crave more food, and it's normally harder to resist. Larger meals don't have this problem.


----------



## min0 lee (Jul 10, 2007)

Valias said:


> If i have smaller meals i find i crave more food, and it's normally harder to resist. Larger meals don't have this problem.


Six smaller quality meals won't do this to you.


----------



## Jodi (Jul 10, 2007)

Valias said:


> If i have smaller meals i find i crave more food, and it's normally harder to resist. Larger meals don't have this problem.


When my metabolism was good (pre-thyroid problems) I use to be the same way.  I'd be so hungry in between meals that I started feeling sick to my stomach from the hunger pangs.  Of course, I don't have that problem too often anymore, occasionally but not too often.


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 10, 2007)

As long as I was eating enough, I found eating more frequently easier to control.  If I ate 3 larger meals I found I was ravinous by the time a meal came around, and would have a harder time not cheating


----------



## Plateau_Max (Jul 10, 2007)

Yeah I can see 6 smaller meals not satiating you but that's going to be mostly because your stomach has expanded to accept the larger portions (my opinion the biggest health problem in the world today).  If you stick with eating the smaller meals your stomach will shrink back down.  Unless of course you've been stuffing yourself so massively you need gastric bypass but that's an extreme.

Anyone who has lowered there portions and stuck with it for a long period of time will tell you, it's much harder for them to eat large meals now.  Like myself when I need another thousand calories 'cause I'm doing massive amounts of cardio that day I add a meal or two and only increase portions on my other meals a small amount.  Let's also not forget - your body isn't always able to digest the entirety of a large meal a lot of times unless you eat REAL slow which is often difficult to do with a huge plate of food in front of you, so a good deal of it is stored as fat or passed as waste.


----------



## min0 lee (Jul 10, 2007)

Plateau_Max said:


> Yeah I can see 6 smaller meals not satiating you but that's going to be mostly because your stomach has expanded to accept the larger portions (my opinion the biggest health problem in the world today). If you stick with eating the smaller meals your stomach will shrink back down. Unless of course you've been stuffing yourself so massively you need gastric bypass but that's an extreme.
> 
> Anyone who has lowered there portions and stuck with it for a long period of time will tell you, it's much harder for them to eat large meals now. Like myself when I need another thousand calories 'cause I'm doing massive amounts of cardio that day I add a meal or two and only increase portions on my other meals a small amount. Let's also not forget - your body isn't always able to digest the entirety of a large meal a lot of times unless you eat REAL slow which is often difficult to do with a huge plate of food in front of you, so a good deal of it is stored as fat or passed as waste.


It takes my stomacher a while to adapt but when it does I don't bloat or get the gas that goes with eating 3 large meals.

Another benefit to eating 6 small meals is the variety.


----------



## Plateau_Max (Jul 10, 2007)

Right, that goes back to my whole dividing macros thing.  Let's say I want the Omega 3 benefit of Salmon, the lean low fat benefit of chicken, the antioxidant benefit of fruit, the endless benefits of vegitibles, the great taste of well put together salad... 6 meals makes this possible in one day.  Which is a huge craving buster.


----------



## Jodi (Jul 10, 2007)

Plateau_Max said:


> Yeah I can see 6 smaller meals not satiating you but that's going to be mostly because your stomach has expanded to accept the larger portions (my opinion the biggest health problem in the world today).  If you stick with eating the smaller meals your stomach will shrink back down.  Unless of course you've been stuffing yourself so massively you need gastric bypass but that's an extreme.
> 
> Anyone who has lowered there portions and stuck with it for a long period of time will tell you, it's much harder for them to eat large meals now.  Like myself when I need another thousand calories 'cause I'm doing massive amounts of cardio that day I add a meal or two and only increase portions on my other meals a small amount.  Let's also not forget - your body isn't always able to digest the entirety of a large meal a lot of times unless you eat REAL slow which is often difficult to do with a huge plate of food in front of you, so a good deal of it is stored as fat or passed as waste.


No it's not really that at all.

It's the fact that most women eat an average of 1200-1400 calories a day.  Try splitting that into 5-6 meals and see how small they are.........


----------



## MCx2 (Jul 10, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> Six smaller quality meals won't do this to you.



Bullshit they won't. I'm ALWAYS hungry. If I eat a huge meal I don't wanna even look at food for another 5 hours. When I eat 6-7 smaller meals a day I'm hungry every 2 hours. 

Like you said, when I eat big meals I bloat and don't feel like eating for a long while. When I eat smaller meals I don't, and feel like I could just keep eating. That being said though, I've seen far better results with the many small meals opposed to 3-4 larger meals.


----------



## sensamilia (Jul 10, 2007)

doesnt ur body go catabolicafter like 3.5 hours without protein?


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 10, 2007)

sensamilia said:


> doesnt ur body go catabolicafter like 3.5 hours without protein?



Yep if you don't eat every 3.5 hours your body just starts to eat muscle, instantly.


----------



## juggernaut2005 (Jul 10, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Yep if you don't eat every 3.5 hours your body just starts to eat muscle, instantly.


----------



## VMSEddieF (Jul 10, 2007)

My pops is 73 and snacks on fruit inbetween average meals throughout the day and its hard to keep up with him.


----------



## loki (Aug 23, 2007)

P-funk said:


> There are a number of things to consider when looking at this question.
> 
> a) research suggests that the amount of meals you eat does not matter as much as the total calories at the end of the day.  I can spread that out over 5-6 small meals or, I can eat 3 large square meals.  Either way, research showed that there was no difference between the two.
> 
> ...



excellent post. i would like to add that there's a method behind reduced meal frequency that had me looking into a type of diet called intermittent fasting. the name IF can be misleading, though, as people automatically think, 'i'm going into starvation mode and losing 10lbs of muscle each night!' basically, you take the calories/macros you fit in 5-6 meals over 12-14 hours and eat them within a window, say, 8 hours. i tried this 16/8 split for 3 weeks for cutting and here is what i found. i was more satisfied with 600 cal meals rather than 400 cal meals. i was able to adhere to the foods/calories i was consuming for the day and cravings for 'junk food' was easily ignored as i felt fuller. workouts were getting better as i felt mentally sound and not hungry as i was when eating 6 smaller meals. i felt good. oh and my LBM did not change more than 1-2 pounds either way doing IF compared to the 6 meals a day, if that. however, i was hitting my calories/macros, lifting weights, and getting 8-9 hours of sleep. both methods 'work' for me in regards to cutting/dropping BF and maintaining LBM. IF was just easier to adhere to in regards to hitting my cals/macros. bulking, however, i have no idea what the results would be as i have not tried it yet.


----------



## Gordo (Aug 23, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Yep if you don't eat every 3.5 hours your body just starts to eat muscle, instantly.


----------



## Plateau_Max (Aug 23, 2007)

Jodi said:


> No it's not really that at all.
> 
> It's the fact that most women eat an average of 1200-1400 calories a day.  Try splitting that into 5-6 meals and see how small they are.........



Well honestly though if a woman is only eating 1200 calories a day she's probably going to be really hungry no matter what... and actually she might be able to keep sane easier if every couple hours she got to eat something.

Plus it doesn't apply to me as I'm on a cut at 3,100 cals right now


----------



## Plateau_Max (Aug 23, 2007)

On a side note, it's frutstrating to me when people spell Plateau wrong.


----------



## cutter07 (Aug 27, 2007)

the way I heard it explained to be is the metabolism is like a grill/furnace/etc. If you put in too little the fire dies down and you burn very little. If you do to much at once you choke the fire and you get very little burn. You need proper fuel (cals) and proper flow (oxygen cap, water, exercise) to stoke the flame properly.


----------



## Uthinkso (Aug 27, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> I find eating 6 small meals leaves less bloated 3 big meals.



Thats the one I notice most, when I eat a huge meal like a cheat. I just want to nap and do nothing.


----------



## Uthinkso (Aug 27, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Yep if you don't eat every 3.5 hours your body just starts to eat muscle, instantly.



J/K .......come on somebody is bound to believe you and walk around with a timer that goes off at 3hr 29min now.


----------



## Just because (Aug 27, 2007)

i really just use the 3 hour time frame as a guideline. I pretty much eat when ever my body says its hungry which is conveniantly about 3-3 1/2 hours after i eat a meal. I guess that means my metabolism is pretty regular.


----------



## 2ndpassion (Aug 30, 2007)

The only reason I eat 6-7 times a day is to be able to eat the number of calories my body requires. If I had to eat only 3 meals it would make those meals seem like mountains of food.


----------



## Nick+ (Aug 30, 2007)

If one has a physical/manual job all day with little breaks, how the hell can one fit in '6' meals per day anyway?


----------



## Skate67 (Aug 31, 2007)

shiznit2169 said:


> Eat THREE meals a day, properly balanced with the right nutritious foods, and work out hard and you'll get some results. But...you'll get about half the results you'd get from six meals a day and it will take you twice as long to get there.



You sure about this?  P's post above is kinda saying the opposite to this isnt it?


----------



## Just because (Sep 1, 2007)

from what i understand it doesnt really matter how many meals you eat a day as long as your hit your "calorie goal." Im taking a couple of nutrition classes and my professor said the bodys metabolism is on a 24hr timeline, if u want to call it that.  as long as you get the calories in your body from when you wake up to when you go to sleep(considering you have a proper sleeping schedule) then it doesnt really matter how many meals you eat. She didnt really go into if your metabolism is more consistant or faster if you eat  6 meals spaced out 3 hours apart as opposed to 3 meals but from the information i received it doesnt sound like it would effect your results much, if any.


----------



## XFatMan (Sep 1, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Yep if you don't eat every 3.5 hours your body just starts to eat muscle, instantly.



Wow, and I thought it was just after 2.5 hours. Who cares anyway? Most people do care about it during the day - I just wonder why none of them gets up twice during the night to eat.  

Anyway, I never believed that eating 6 meals per day can boost your metabolism because it isn???t logical. More active tissue means faster metabolism, and eating 6 times a day won???t add any muscle to your body, I suppose. However, I do eat 6 times a day because it???s easier to eat 400 calories in one sitting than it is to eat 800 or so.


----------



## Skate67 (Sep 1, 2007)

Just because said:


> from what i understand it doesnt really matter how many meals you eat a day as long as your hit your "calorie goal." Im taking a couple of nutrition classes and my professor said the bodys metabolism is on a 24hr timeline...



This is what i've been hearing too, so im gonna run with it 



XFatMan said:


> Wow, and I thought it was just after 2.5 hours. Who cares anyway?



I think he was just joking man haha.


----------



## Just because (Sep 1, 2007)

Nick+ said:


> If one has a physical/manual job all day with little breaks, how the hell can one fit in '6' meals per day anyway?



Im a waiter/bartender and i often have to work 14 hour shifts with a few small breaks whenever the resteraunt slows down so what i do is this....

Buy enough food for about a week on sunday. 

grocery list:
chicken
steak
broccoli
brown rice
avacado
etc...

I cook about 3 days worth of chicken,steak,rice and anything that needs to be cooked and put my portions into plastic baggies. i also baggie everything that is not cooked like the avocado, fruits and what not and store everything in the fridge. i also bought a cooler from walmart that has both a compartment for items that need to be kept chilled and another compartment for other food items.its by a company called california inovations. go to walmart they will have it. if i know im gonna be gone for 6 hours i throw in enough food to make 2 or 3 meals. if im gone for 9 then 3 or 4 meals and so on and so on. just keep it in your car or wherever you go and you dont have to worry about not eating. Its great!


----------



## XFatMan (Sep 2, 2007)

ST240 said:


> I think he was just joking man haha.



Aw, looks like my irony was totally undercover, huh?


----------



## Little Wing (Sep 2, 2007)

that's it 3 meals a day for me. thank you P-funk.


----------



## goob (Sep 2, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> that's it 3 meals a day for me. thank you P-funk.


 
Agreed 3-4. I'd much rather have 3 square big meals than worry about the logistics of getting 6 meals per day.   Especially as it does nothing for metabolism as stated earlier....


----------



## Skate67 (Sep 2, 2007)

XFatMan said:


> Aw, looks like my irony was totally undercover, huh?



Haha. either that or my sense of humor is


----------



## danny81 (Sep 7, 2007)

wheres al the research pointing towars it being a myth?


----------



## Stonewall (Sep 12, 2007)

There is some research out there that says that eating 3 times a day is no worse than 6. 

For example, Gary Schwartz, a researcher with the Albert Einstein College of Medicine answered, "There's no strong data supporting either [three meals a day or six meals a day] as being more effective" for losing weight or maintaining lost weight. "Clearly there is an emphasis on reducing caloric intake overall, whether it be by decreasing meal size and/or decreasing meal frequency."

and..."Karen Collins, MS, RD, CDN, with the American Institute for Cancer Research, noted that in a recent study, the baseline metabolic rate (how fast the body burns calories) was unaffected by differences in meal timing. "Other studies also show that eating frequency has no effect on a person's overall metabolic rate," says Collins. 

However, most of these studies were not done on people who were weight training.  The studies were done with the effect on weight loss in mind.  One of the reasons some nutritionists hesitate to recommend 6 meals a day is because of the tendacy to take in too many calories when presented with the opportunity to eat that many times a day. 

Most of us, I assume, have good control over our diets and, for me, eating 6 times a day is the only way I can hold enough food to get the proper amount of protein every day.

As with most things based on scientific research, you can find a paper out there somewhere that will back up nearly any viewpoint and present it as the Holy Grail of scientific discoveries.  It all comes down to finding what works best for you, at your age, with your physical limitations, and schedule.


----------

