3 meals a day or 6 small meals? Does it really make a difference?

Some studies in the past have found small benefits to eating smaller meals throughout the day. But often the studies have involved "extremes" like comparing 3 meals to a dozen or more "snacks". Many have thought that 6 small meals would be more realistic, but to my surprise, aside from the "theory" that a small meal every 2 to 2 1/2 hours would keep insulin levels more "even". It is a theory that I've thought to be sound,

Now here comes a study in the British Journal of Nutrition involving groups of overweight men and women who were randomly picked and assigned to very strict low calorie diets and followed for 8 weeks.

Each group at the same calories. One ate 3 meals a day. The other ate six.

Both groups lost significant amounts of weight.

There was no difference between them in fat loss.

Both had similar challenges in appetite control (with surveys they were given to fill out).

The key hormones that trigger hunger, or make us feel "full" on blood tests were shown to be NO DIFFERENT in either group.

And it turns out this is not the only study with these findings!

In other words, it made no difference whether it was 3 or 6 meals, according to this study. Neither had more or less of an impact upon metabolism.

The researchers then suggested that the added element of exercise could make the difference in terms of the above changes being enhanced.



If you ask me:

I had experienced the 3 meals in the past and it worked for me to an extent. This study hit it right on the nail because I don’t believe in the “One Size Fits All Diet”. However, I do think everyone has a different metabolism. Exercise did play a role in this study. As a certified fitness nutrition specialist, I would definitely recommend more than 3 meals a day, just because when including activities and exercise together, may cause craving and eventually screwing up your meal design.