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

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by soxmuscle

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by P-funk

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

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.
I always thought that was the MAIN reason why 5-6 meals/day were more superior to 3..

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 in otherwords, if you can control yourself and eat 3meals/day you'll be fine as long as you don't exceed your calorie requirements

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.

Originally Posted by juggernaut2005

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

24-hour metabolism trumps all in the long run.

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

Originally Posted by danny81

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?

Originally Posted by sensamilia

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.

Originally Posted by Jodi

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.

Originally Posted by danny81

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.

Originally Posted by soxmuscle

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??

Originally Posted by soxmuscle

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

Originally Posted by Rocco32

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.

Originally Posted by Hoglander

Jodi is a man??

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

Originally Posted by soxmuscle

Drunk ass.

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

Originally Posted by Rocco32

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.

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.

Originally Posted by min0 lee

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

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.