The Importance of Meal Frequency

JenniferDavis said:
I did not write anything about calories. To be 100% sure - by hypocaloric you mean diets like 1000-1200 kcal/day?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

By hypocaloric, I mean what it means... that being the consumption of less calories than your body expends. Otherwise known as being in a deficit.

What I'm saying is that avoiding big meals is usually the key to losing weight in the long term. All radical movements like hypocaloric diets are:
1. dangerous
2. short-term - you can't be on such diets for a long period of time.
Click to expand...

You have to be very careful with generalizations and applying them to everyone. Some people thrive... and I mean THRIVE... on fasting a large chunk of their day and then eating all of their calories in a tight time frame after training. See intermittent fasting for example.

Celebrites have to stay in shape (that's part and parcel of their job) so it might be beneficial to listen to their tips as they work...
Click to expand...

No offense but that's some of the worse advice I've seen. It's well known that many celebrities are about as screwed up as you can get when it comes to body image and eating habits.

I choose to listen to science and to understand how the body adapts/responds to various "stressors"
 
Hey, yesterday I noticed the TV's in my fitness center were cycling a new tip to support frequent smaller meals vs less frequent larger meals. The tip said to eat smaller frequent meals, because your body can only process 800 calories at any one meal and anything over that is stored as fat. :eyeroll:

*sigh*
 
Be careful Lauren. You're on the verge of flipping the biological switch that will transform your body into a energy producing machine. Yes, that's right...

Your body will actually start creating fat out of thin air.
 
Steve said:
I was recently asked by a member here to write a stickie about meal frequency and fat loss. It wasn't a few days later when I received Lyle McDonald's newsletter highlighting a recent article he wrote on the topic of meal frequency. After reading through it, I figured there's no reason for me to reinvent the wheel. Lyle's article covers the topic perfectly.

You can find his articles at . This particular one is found .
Click to expand...

Never skip a meal. Breakfast, lunch and dinner mostly. With (healthy) snacks in between if you need or want them.
 
Steve said:
Why such an absolute statement?
Click to expand...

Opps sorry. (I should have stated ''graded absolutism'')

I went through a full body cleansing. Due to circumstances I stayed 1 year with zero fast food, most frozen desserts (except frozen yoghurt on special occasions like birthdays) and soft drinks. My mother always did the plates or ordered the healthy foods for me and I ate. And the drinks were either tea, fruit juices or water.

Every single time I skip breakfast (one of the most important meals of the day) my stomach starts aching. I always feel as if I am getting lightly 'burned' on the inside on the stomach walls by 'soft acid' or something (weird description I know but that's how I feel). My body reacts to this anomality.

Breakfast is called breakfast because well it is literally breaking the fasting. All night your body didn't take food and the energy was being accumulated during sleep.

That's why I don't get it when people either skip meals or only sleep 3 or 4 hours a day. It just ain't healthy. Anything from 7 to 9 hours of sleep tends to be the best option. Also proportions are important in the meals for a lot of people (including me).
 
Last edited:
Actually there's data supporting skipping breakfast in terms of body comp and health measures. For some people, myself included, it's not ideal. But for others, such as the intermittent fasting crowd (see for example) going long periods of time without food during the day does wonders.

The point is, there isn't one right way and skipping one meal isn't going to make a big difference in terms of anything if calories and nutrients are accounted for. It's the totals obtained each day that matter most.
 
Steve said:
Actually there's data supporting skipping breakfast in terms of body comp and health measures. For some people, myself included, it's not ideal. But for others, such as the intermittent fasting crowd (see for example) going long periods of time without food during the day does wonders.

The point is, there isn't one right way and skipping one meal isn't going to make a big difference in terms of anything if calories and nutrients are accounted for. It's the totals obtained each day that matter most.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's usually like 1/5 of people it seems. 4/5 don't tend to skip meals. Some people can skip meals. But most cannot. I should have notifed my statement as 'graded absolutism' (besides telling you about my year without fast food). Also I should have stated that ever since I was a child it was always three meals (without snacks) per day unlike 5 or 6 meals some people get. Maybe that's also why I don't understand the ''skipping'' meals part.

'' The point is, there isn't one right way and skipping one meal isn't going to make a big difference in terms of anything if calories and nutrients are accounted for. ''

Usually it does make a difference. A few times it does not.

Absolutism for example in morality is truth and error, right and word. Graded absolutism is the concept of right and wrong in various ears and settings or in instances where right and wrong is 'tweaked' and some concepts are 'most'/'general' or higher versus lower when confronted.

Sounds confusing I know but the idea that ''Most cannot skip meals'' tends to fit in this. Most people either tend to think in absolutism or relativism terms. There is little to no talk of graded absolutism + absolutism sadly.
 
Last edited:
Many people can skip meals if calories and nutrients are accounted for. Many people have never tried it because folks tend to keep old dogmas around like their favorite t-shirts.

High meal frequencies are just that...

Dogma.

Which is the only reason I commented on your original post. Many folks get stressed out if they start missing meals by choice, schedule or whatever. They get stressed b/c people won't let the idea that meal frequency is holy grail of fat loss, body composition and health when research clearly indicates it's not.

Yes, some folks will fare better on higher meal frequencies. But it should never be painted as an either or situation. That's known as a false dichotomy.

The take home message is pick your calorie goals. Pick your nutrient goals. Spread those calories/nutrients over as many feedings as you see fit for you, personally.
 
Steve said:
Many people can skip meals if calories and nutrients are accounted for. Many people have never tried it because folks tend to keep old dogmas around like their favorite t-shirts.

High meal frequencies are just that...

Dogma.

Which is the only reason I commented on your original post. Many folks get stressed out if they start missing meals by choice, schedule or whatever. They get stressed b/c people won't let the idea that meal frequency is holy grail of fat loss, body composition and health when research clearly indicates it's not.

Yes, some folks will fare better on higher meal frequencies. But it should never be painted as an either or situation. That's known as a false dichotomy.

The take home message is pick your calorie goals. Pick your nutrient goals. Spread those calories/nutrients over as many feedings as you see fit for you, personally.
Click to expand...

Yeah I understand that's why I should have said ''graded absolutism'' before all this. Most people can't skip meals. Some can. Thanks.
 
VJDTropical said:
Yeah I understand that's why I should have said ''graded absolutism'' before all this. Most people can't skip meals. Some can. Thanks.
Click to expand...

The reason I made my last post, after reading your bit about graded absolutism, is that I take issue with your use of the word "most." We don't have any clue how many people would do better with lower meal frequencies. The dogma of many small meals per day is so ingrained that we're likely not going to know anytime soon.

My point is, we can't say, "Most people can't skip meals."

You can say, "I, personally, do better on higher meal frequencies." But that's about it.
 
Steve said:
The reason I made my last post, after reading your bit about graded absolutism, is that I take issue with your use of the word "most." We don't have any clue how many people would do better with lower meal frequencies. The dogma of many small meals per day is so ingrained that we're likely not going to know anytime soon.

My point is, we can't say, "Most people can't skip meals."

You can say, "I, personally, do better on higher meal frequencies." But that's about it.
Click to expand...

Of course we don't how many people do better on low meal frequencies but we can calculate and estimate. Also just checked the link. It's mostly fasting =)

I read it wrong. And here I thought it was breakfast-dinner or no breakfast (that's what I taught was 'low meal frequencies'). I'm familiar with fasting (I'm a Christian). Sometimes I fast myself. I was actually brought up with 3 meals per day (usually no snacks in between).

You should have said no meal frequencies. Or fasting. Not intermittent fasting. But then again sorry for the mess-up. I thought intermittent was something else. English isn't my mother tongue.

My beef isn't with fasting. It's with skipping breakfast and only eating dinner or skipping lunch and doing that. If you skip it all together then it's alright (fasting). If you eat then primarily three meals a day (with or without snacks).

Thanks Steve for the correction.
 
Intermittent fasting is not complete fasting. It's intra-day fasting. These folks still eat ALL of their calorie and nutrient requirements... they simply cram them into a smaller window which typically falls around and after training.
 
I do intermittent fasting, even during maintenance..It basically goes like you eat your first meal at around noon-1pm, your last meal at 8-9pm. I do it because once I got to a lower bf% (around 11%) it became very hard to mobilize the last bits of stubborn body fat and keep it off. The biggest reason though is convenience, because I can eat 2 1000cal meals while dieting (one of them right before bed too, oh noes blasphemy right?), it really kills my hunger and makes me forget I'm dieting in the first place. And I don't have to worry about breakfast in the morning before work which is so nice (I usually prepare lunch the night before so I can just grab and go). In other words, I'm still getting all my macronutrients, not in any type of crash deficit (max deficit of 400-500cals usually), so the only difference is timing.

For training, I do low intensity fasted cardio (max 3.5mph) for around 30-40mins in the morning, then will eat my first meal a few hours later. On training days, I will stay fasted until before training then have some protein or BCAAs, go train (thus weight training is mostly but not completely fasted - with no loss in performance), then come back and eat my first protein-laden 1000cal meal of the day.

I guess I'm just writing this to show how radically various eating plans can differ, the above is a whole different world from the "eat six meals a day" or "never skip breakfast, the most important meal ever" concepts, yet it still works for me and others. It's not the only way, it's not even the best way, because what's best depends on the person. Just because something is popular and commonly accepted doesn't mean it is the only way or even the most effective way. Experiment and see what works for you. Personally I feel the burden of proof now lies on those saying 3 meals a day and breakfast is necessary for health.
 
Last edited:
Clenbut said:
I always believe that the small stuff should be taken in every 2-3 hours is better then eating full meal twice a day, Thanks for such information.
Click to expand...

As do most people because that's what's preached even though the scientific data isn't conclusive on the matter and there are large factions of people who fare better on lower meal frequencies.

What we do know is if you're hitting your calorie and nutrient targets, not much else likely matters so pick an approach that fits YOUR needs.
 
I think the information on this thread would be better understood if it were more concisely written. There is too much jargon. If you are going to use terms like TEF, at least explain them.

Your writings are much too wordy. That abstract you posted was almost useless, except as evidence. I think the whole thread could be summed by much more effectively by saying

"Studies have shown that frequent small meals are not better for weight loss than fewer large meals." And then provide some links where the writing is clear and understandable to a lay readership. With maybe a couple of paragraphs of straightforward explanation.

I am sure you are inclined now to accuse me of just being too dumb if i can't understand. But frankly, your wordiness is boring and the articles you site are sometimes too technical to be easily grasped.

I think your whole approach with all the TLF TEF etcs are simply too technical for the great majority of readers here. I have opened a few of your thread and always find them poorly written and too long.

People say thanks for the news but i doubt they've understand most of what you've written any better than i have. I have of course understood your essential premise. It's the explanation where you lose me.
 
This was a great read! I thought that eating 6 meals per day was written in stone! Some people actually get in trouble starting off eating this way because they still have bad eating habits. They just end up gaining even more weight because of overeating.

I think it's a good idea to start eating healthy first and then work on the frequency in which you eat. This was something that I totally struggled with when I was just getting started. My habit were the same...so I just ate more.

Big mistake!

I ended up gaining even more weight. You really have to know your body because what me work for someone else may not work for you.
 
its not to be counted.. but little bit confused on any occasion. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top