I am a student of logic. Mathematics taught me a great deal about starting from basics and constructing the complex using small logical steps. Mathematics has a nice built-in crap-detection system as well. Each step can be traced backward and checked for correctness all the way down to the foundation if necessary. If someone used bad logic, it’s easy to find. No one trusts an idea that hasn’t been built upon smaller, proven steps.
The same is not true of the diet and exercise industry. In this world, it’s acceptable to have an idea, come up with another idea as to why it should work and sell both ideas without having tested either, without even having proof of either. There’s no foundation and no experiment to assert the validity. Many of the accepted truths we teach and practice fall within this category, and even when the idea is refuted by solid fact, it often persists out of habit.
What makes it so hard to let go? It’s the logic behind it. For most of us, the idea “if A implies B then B must be true” is very convincing, and if the person talks mostly about B, we forget to check if A is true. This is good logic put atop poor facts and it happens every day. And it’s so damn convincing that even those of us formally trained to recognize it often don’t. This is why research rules science and not intuition or the that-makes-sense acceptance that gets afforded to what are really half-baked ideas in the diet and exercise realm. In the real world, there needs to be proof that the idea is based on facts and testing to ensure the idea works.
In this series, I want to pick apart a few widely believed ideas where the logic doesn’t apply for one reason or another. I’ll start with my favorite that I hope to kill one of these days.
The Idea
Eating smaller more frequent meals increases metabolism and causes the body to burn more fat.
The Logic
If the body has to wait too long between meals, it suddenly thinks it’s starving and begins to store fat, but if it feels adequately fueled, it will release fat and those extra pounds melt away.
The Reality
The reality is simple. No matter how many meals the body gets through the day or how tightly spaced those meals, what matters for fat loss is the total calories consumed. Eat two meals or eat ten, it doesn’t matter—the fat won’t come off any faster.
I know you’ve probably heard the mini-meal hypothesis repeated enough times to make it tantamount to fact and I was once sold on the idea. It’s in the magazines, right? There must be something to it. Even several prominent nutrition certifications teach it as fact. When I searched the last 50 years of scientific literature, I found about seven studies that make that conclusion1-7 (there are two more from the last five years as well8, 9). For several years, I saw many of these studies cited over and over again and I repeated the mantra of mini-meals: eat less more often and the fat melts away.
Then I read the published research that I had been citing. I was suddenly caught in a familiar situation—a relationship where the other person is perfect until you get to know them intimately and then the good times end. So it was with my mini-meal enchantment.
When I sat down and read the studies I noticed a big problem. Four of the studies came from the 50s, 60s and early 70s and seemed poorly controlled by researchers1-4. In none of the other five did the researchers control calories5-9 but yet they still came to the conclusion that eating more frequent meals increases metabolism and aids in losing weight and fat loss. From their work, they could not know if people unconsciously ate fewer calories when eating multiple meals or if eating frequently increased metabolism. I dug deeper.
None of the studies measured changes in daily calories as the participants moved from three squares to six or more minis and I wanted studies that did. When I went through the research, I found 29 studies where researchers tested every feasible number of meals, from 1 to 10 per day, ensuring that daily calories remained the same regardless of the number of meals10-38. In all 29 studies, the result was the same: the number of meals eaten per day didn’t matter for fat or weight loss, only the calories did.
They even locked people in boxes called whole-body calorimeters to get precise measurements of metabolism to find a difference between eating a few big meals and many small meals. Again, no change in metabolism, energy expenditure or fat metabolism. The number of meals per day didn’t even affect what type of weight the participants lost—all of them lost the same amount of weight and the same amount of fat regardless of meal frequency. They tested about everything you can imagine in those studies with no effect. Some researches even went back and reassessed previous studies and looked at the food journal data that was ignored when the original researchers made their conclusions. All the participants that lost weight with mini-meals did so because they inadvertently cut calories.
Where’d the logic go bad? The logic, arguably, is okay. It’s the premise that’s flawed. The body does not trigger a hormonal cascade to signal possible starvation if it goes a few hours, or even several hours without eating. The body copes well with long spans of no food. The signals triggered by starvation—the ones that supposedly kick in after only a couple hours of not eating—take roughly three or four days of very low calories to activate39-48. They will not activate in two hours, or three or eight. The entire premise from which this idea is built is wrong.
A second place the logic goes wrong is with the romanticized idea that the body has some latent desire to be skinny when it’s happy. Give it all the food it craves and it will reward you by shedding the fat. The body doesn’t work that way. It turns out that longer stretches between meals makes the body release more fat to be burned as fuel27, 28, 37, 49, 51. What the body wants is to use fat if there’s no food coming in and store fat when there’s too much food. Such routine frequent feedings actually slows resting metabolism50 and lowers another component of metabolism called the thermic effect of food51-54.
There’s not much upside to mini meals when dieting and the downside of a slower metabolism is not enticing either, but for the average person, mini-meals are a pain. Granted, this is Elite, and you’re reading this because you’re willing to make the sacrifices and accept the challenges of being extra-ordinary, but for those of you who train others who might not be on the path to exceptional, telling them they must eat every few hours—as I’ve heard and read from trainers countless times—can set them up for failure. In the studies using multiple meals, more people quit because of having to eat too often rather than not enough. They found eating many meals inconvenient, and this despite having all their meals made and delivered to them by the people conducting the study30, 31, 33.
I’m not saying eating frequently isn’t without its uses. If you’re trying to create a long-lasting anabolic environment, then meal frequency can be very important. Many of these studies also showed the importance of eating on a schedule: eating at the same time each day increases insulin sensitivity55, and again, if you want a peak anabolic environment, you want increased insulin sensitivity. Multi-mini meals can also be good for hunger control56, 57, if hunger control is a problem. But for fat loss, it’s not logical; it’s senseless.
- Wu H, Wu DY. Influence of feeding schedule on nitrogen utilization and excretion. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1950;74:78-82.
- Cohn C. Meal-eating, nibbling, and body metabolism. J Am Diet Assoc. 1961 May;38:433-6.
- Gwinup G, Kruger FA, Hamwi GJ. Metabolic effects of gorging versus nibbling. Ohio State Med J. 1964 Jul;60:663-6.
- Bray GA. Lipogenesis in human adipose tissue: some effects of nibbling and gorging. J Clin Invest. 1972 Mar;51(3):537-48.
- LeBlanc J, Mercier I, Nadeau A. Components of postprandial thermogenesis in relation to meal frequency in humans. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1993 Dec;71(12):879-83.
- Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Vuksan V, Brighenti F, Cunnane SC, Rao AV, Jenkins AL, Buckley G, Patten R, Singer W, et al. Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency. N Engl J Med. 1989 Oct 5;321(14):929-34.
- Antoine JM, Rohr R, Gagey MJ, Bleyer RE, Debry G. Feeding frequency and nitrogen balance in weight-reducing obese women. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr. 1984 Jan;38(1):31-8.
- Ekmekcioglu C, Touitou Y. Chronobiological aspects of food intake and metabolism and their relevance on energy balance and weight regulation. Obes Rev. 2010 Jan 27.
- Koletzko B, Toschke AM. Meal patterns and frequencies: do they affect body weight in children and adolescents? Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2010 Feb;50(2):100-5.
- Kinabo JL, Durnin JV. Effect of meal frequency on the thermic effect of food in women. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1990 May;44(5):389-95.
- Taylor MA, Garrow JS. Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.
- Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70. Review.
- Holmback U, Lowden A, Akerfeldt T, Lennernas M, Hambraeus L, Forslund J, Akerstedt T, Stridsberg M, Forslund A. The human body may buffer small differences in meal size and timing during a 24-h wake period provided energy balance is maintained. J Nutr. 2003 Sep;133(9):2748-55.
- Jones PJ, Namchuk GL, Pederson RA. Meal frequency influences circulating hormone levels but not lipogenesis rates in humans. Metabolism. 1995 Feb;44(2):218-23.
- Arnold L, Ball M, Mann J. Metabolic effects of alterations in meal frequency in hypercholesterolaemic individuals. Atherosclerosis. 1994 Aug;108(2):167-74.
- Murphy MC, Chapman C, Lovegrove JA, Isherwood SG, Morgan LM, Wright JW, Williams CM. Meal frequency; does it determine postprandial lipaemia? Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996 Aug;50(8):491-7.
- Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Muller HL, Hollomey S. Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency Ann Nutr Metab. 1987;31(2):88-97.
- Mann J. Meal frequency and plasma lipids and lipoproteins. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S83-90. Review.
- Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993 Jan;17(1):31-6.
- Dallosso HM, Murgatroyd PR, James WP. Feeding frequency and energy balance in adult males. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr. 1982;36C(1):25-39.
- Hill JO, Anderson JC, Lin D, Yakubu F. Effects of meal frequency on energy utilization in rats. Am J Physiol. 1988 Oct;255(4 Pt 2):R616-21.
- Garrow JS, Durrant M, Blaza S, Wilkins D, Royston P, Sunkin S. The effect of meal frequency and protein concentration on the composition of the weight lost by obese subjects. Br J Nutr. 1981 Jan;45(1):5-15.
- Arnold L, Mann JI, Ball MJ. Metabolic effects of alterations in meal frequency in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1997 Nov;20(11):1651-4.
- Rashidi MR, Mahboob S, Sattarivand R. Effects of nibbling and gorging on lipid profiles, blood glucose and insulin levels in healthy subjects. Saudi Med J. 2003 Sep;24(9):945-8.
- Baker N, Palmquist DL, Learn DB. Equally rapid activation of lipogenesis in nibbling and gorging mice. J Lipid Res. 1976 Sep;17(5):527-35.
- Baker N, Huebotter RJ. Lipogenic activation after nibbling and gorging in mice. J Lipid Res. 1973 Jan;14(1):87-94.
- Sensi S, Capani F. Chronobiological aspects of weight loss in obesity: effects of different meal timing regimens. Chronobiol Int. 1987;4(2):251-61.
- Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.
- Holmback U, Lowden A, Akerfeldt T, Lennernas M, Hambraeus L, Forslund J, Akerstedt T, Stridsberg M, Forslund A. The human body may buffer small differences in meal size and timing during a 24-h wake period provided energy balance is maintained. J Nutr. 2003 Sep;133(9):2748-55.
- [No authors listed] Effects of meal frequency during weight reduction. Nutr Rev. 1972 Jul;30(7):158-62. Review.
- Young CM, Hutter LF, Scanlan SS, Rand CE, Lutwak L, Simko V. Metabolic effects of meal frequency on normal young men. J Am Diet Assoc. 1972 Oct;61(4):391-8.
- Finkelstein B, Fryer BA. Meal frequency and weight reduction of young women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1971 Apr;24(4):465-8.
- Young CM, Scanlan SS, Topping CM, Simko V, Lutwak L. Frequency of feeding, weight reduction, and body composition. J Am Diet Assoc. 1971 Nov;59(5):466-72.
- Wadhwa PS, Young EA, Schmidt K, Elson CE, Pringle DJ. Metabolic consequences of feeding frequency in man. Am J Clin Nutr. 1973 Aug;26(8):823-30.
- Romsos DR, Miller ER, Leveille GA. Influence of feeding frequency on body weight and glucose tolerance in the pig. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1978 Apr;157(4):528-30.
- Bortz W, Wroldsen A, Issekutz B, Rodahl K. Weight loss and frequency of feeding. N Engl J Med. 1966;274:376-379.
- Swindells YE, Holmes SA, Robinson MF. The metabolic response of young women to changes in the frequency of meals. Br J Nutr. 1968;22(4):667-680.
- Wu H, Wu DY. Influence of feeding schedule on nitrogen utilization and excretion. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1950;74:78-82.
- Chomard P, Vernhes G, Autissier N, Debry G. Serum concentrations of total and free thyroid hormones in moderately obese women during a six-week slimming cure. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1988 Apr;42(4):285-93.
- Wisse BE, Campfield LA, Marliss EB, Morais JA, Tenenbaum R, Gougeon R. Effect of prolonged moderate and severe energy restriction and refeeding on plasma leptin concentrations in obese women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3):321-30.
- Miyawaki T, Masuzaki H, Ogawa Y, Hosoda K, Nishimura H, Azuma N, Sugawara A, Masuda I, Murata M, Matsuo T, Hayashi T, Inoue G, Yoshimasa Y, Nakao K. Clinical implications of leptin and its potential humoral regulators in long-term low-calorie diet therapy for obese humans. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Jul;56(7):593-600.
- Racette SB, Kohrt WM, Landt M, Holloszy JO. Response of serum leptin concentrations to 7 d of energy restriction in centrally obese African Americans with impaired or diabetic glucose tolerance. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Jul;66(1):33-7.
- Samuels MH, Kramer P. Differential effects of short-term fasting on pulsatile thyrotropin, gonadotropin, and alpha-subunit secretion in healthy men–a clinical research center study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996 Jan;81(1):32-6.
- Adami S, Ferrari M, Galvanini G, Cominacini L, Bruni F, Pelloso M, Lo Cascio V. Serum thyroid hormone concentrations and weight loss relationships in eight obese women during semistarvation. J Endocrinol Invest. 1979 Jul-Sep;2(3):271-4.
- Garrel DR, Todd KS, Pugeat MM, Calloway DH. Hormonal changes in normal men under marginally negative energy balance. Am J Clin Nutr. 1984 Jun;39(6):930-6.
- Bergendahl M, Vance ML, Iranmanesh A, Thorner MO, Veldhuis JD. Fasting as a metabolic stress paradigm selectively amplifies cortisol secretory burst mass and delays the time of maximal nyctohemeral cortisol concentrations in healthy men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996 Feb;81(2):692-9.
- Cameron JL, Weltzin TE, McConaha C, Helmreich DL, Kaye WH. Slowing of pulsatile luteinizing hormone secretion in men after forty-eight hours of fasting. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1991 Jul;73(1):35-41.
- Keim NL, Stern JS, Havel PJ. Relation between circulating leptin concentrations and appetite during a prolonged, moderate energy deficit in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Oct;68(4):794-801.
- Jones PJ, Leitch CA, Pederson RA. Meal-frequency effects on plasma hormone concentrations and cholesterol synthesis in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 1993 Jun;57(6):868-74.
- Westerterp-Plantenga MS, Goris AH, Meijer EP, Westerterp KR. Habitual meal frequency in relation to resting and activity-induced energy expenditure in human subjects: the role of fat-free mass. Br J Nutr. 2003 Sep;90(3):643-9.
- Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR, Kester AD. Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism. Br J Nutr. 1993 Jul;70(1):103-15.
- Molnar D. The effect of meal frequency on postprandial thermogenesis in obese children. Padiatr Padol. 1992;27(6):177-81.
- Tai MM, Castillo P, Pi-Sunyer FX. Meal size and frequency: effect on the thermic effect of food. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Nov;54(5):783-7.
- Young JC. Meal size and frequency: effect on potentiation of the thermal effect of food by prior exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;70(5):437-41.
- Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA. Regular meal frequency creates more appropriate insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles compared with irregular meal frequency in healthy lean women. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jul;58(7):1071-7.
- Speechly DP, Rogers GG, Buffenstein R. Acute appetite reduction associated with an increased frequency of eating in obese males. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 Nov;23(11):1151-9.
- Speechly DP, Buffenstein R. Greater appetite control associated with an increased frequency of eating in lean males. Appetite. 1999 Dec;33(3):285-97.
PDF 
Kiefer is a nutritional consultant, physique and performance coach and author of the fat loss guide, The Carb Nite® Solution (http://www.carbnite.com). His background as a physicist brings scientific rigor to his years of experience. You can read more about his philosophy at http://dangerouslyhardcore.com. 
Very interesting read Kiefer. Nice to see some nutritional info that’s more than just anecdotal.
Great article! I’m glad you backed up your claims.
Good article. I too had been citing this misinformation up until a year ago when a client asked why. I researched it and found it to be untrue. What the studies I found did show was that while in a calorie deficit spreading your meals into smaller portions throughout the day made you feel less hungry and more likely to stick to the deficit over a longer period of time.
Great article. I know guys like Layne Norton have been discussing this for a while.
I was under the idea that the meal frequency was not for increased metabolism and fat loss directly, but instead for insulin control. lower insulin levels are more optimum for fat loss aren’t they? and insulin spikes are more optimum for muscle gains and fat gain if calories are not used. so the idea was to keep insulin levels at a controlled level to avoid spikes and drops. Did different macros make any difference in your research? I’m not contesting you, I would just like to have your take on it. thanks.
Excellent. Maybe next you can tackle the “you shouldn’t mix carbs with fat” nutritional nonsense!
How about the effects of mini-meals on muscle building? Any ups or downs there?
If a fast is initiated, I believe this actually increases insulin senstivity, possibly offsetting the spike with bigger meals.
I think meal frequency is very important to those considered “hard gainers”. Personally, I have no problem eating 1500+ calories in one sitting but guys who don’t have that luxary really need to eat more frequent meals in order to get enough calories to grow.
wait, in one paragraph you mention the
They even locked people in boxes called whole-body calorimeters to get precise measurements of metabolism to find a difference between eating a few big meals and many small meals. Again, no change in metabolism, energy expenditure or fat metabolism
then a little later you state…
Such routine frequent feedings actually slows resting metabolism50 and lowers another component of metabolism called the thermic effect of food51-54.
Which is it?
MODERATOR: can you add this to my comment?
Im not arguing with you I just want to understand, thanks.
I disagree. The earlier studies where calories were NOT controlled more closely matches the real world. I believe the theory behind more or fewer meals is that the person will naturally take in fewer carbs, which results in the weight loss. Forcing all of the subjects to eat the same amount of calories tells us something, but it won’t tell you if eating more meals results in less calories or hunger.
Also, while it’s good and useful to use logic to evaluate poorly done studies (so MANY of them are poorly done nowadays), I want to suggest that logic fails us when it comes to understanding how diets and weight gain works. People aren’t deterministic, like billiard balls banking at a predictable angle. Everybody is different. 100 calories eaten or burned by one person has a different effect than the same 100 calories in another person. Some people have medical issues that make fat or calories a risk for weight gain, while other people’s issues make carbs and sugars more of a risk for them.
Good article. Just look at the warrior diet
@Joel: I should have been more clear. The whole-body calorimetry studies were short-term, lasting up to 5 days (it’s hard to convince someone to stay in a box more than a week). The other studies based on metabolic rate and thyroid hormone levels were sampled over long periods, 6 months or more. Sorry for the confusion.
@Zack: Traditionally, the wisdom has been using mini-meals for raising metabolism. Later, when low-glycemic crowds came in, they used the notion that mini-meals would help stabilize insulin levels and allow fat loss. The studies show the opposite. Holding insulin levels at moderate levels throughout the day can impede fat loss. A few spikes during the day are conducive to both fat burning and muscle building.
@Mads: Muscle building is exactly what mini-meals should be used for to help create an ongoing anabolic and anti-catabolic environment for muscle growth.
@Ken: I totally agree with you and you’re right on track with the research. But the article is trying to debunk the myth that by simply eating more meals per day, your body burns more calories. This is strictly false.
I’ve been following an Intermittent Fasting (IF) program and using Wendler’s 5/3/1. The IF program I’m following is from leangains.com which was in an article on this website in March or April.
I have been on the IF program for 10 weeks. I only eat after I train or at lunch. I typically train around 9 or 10 am. My final meal is after I get home from work aroud 5PM. I’ve even only eat at 5PM on some days and I make sure I eat plenty of protein when I do eat.
I’ve had no negative effects on my strength and it continues to progress. I’ve slowly lost fat but not as fast as I had hoped. I suppose the fat loss would speed up if I performed steady state or high intensity cardio such as Tabata sprints, OR the Prowler. But, I can tell my body is slowly recomposing my fat to muscle ratio.
I thoroughly enjoy IF along with lack of constantly occupying my mind with food every 2-3 hours.
At 6ft, 38yrs old and 215-220lbs, I realize this type of diet isn’t going to make me a world champion but I do stand out from the typical out of shape American.
I can personally say that i recently switched from 10 meals a day that were small, to 3 big ones and a 2 protein bars. i kept the calories exactly the same and it really works fine. infact i have lost fat and gained quite a bit of strength and size in the recent past. i feel 3 is just much easier to deal with throughout the day for me. 10 meals in my opinion is great for people who cant stomach alot of food..it is much easier to gain weight with 10 if your a hard gainer. either is fine imo regaurding insulin..from my expeirence and research as long as you dont take in foods with alot of refined carbs / white sugar you should be alright..still best to have the majority of carbs after your workout though of course
While it may be true that more meals doesn’t necessarily mean you automatically lose body fat, the fact that calories is the only thing that matters has been proven false time and time again. The larger role at hand has to do with insulin levels, if you feed someone 3000 calories of mostly processed carbohydrates i.e. breads, pastas, amongst other grains thus eliciting very potent insulin spikes, and you fed another person 3000 calories of mostly protein and fats and very little processed carbohydrates, which would cause a much smaller and gradual insulin release, the person eating the processed carbohydrates will gain more body fat almost every time so long their activity levels are the same and there not running marathons and whatnot.
looking forward to other installments, do you know anything about athletic training, for football specifically?
@Dan: You’re on to something. What this article is addressing is one variable: the number of meals per day. The variable of which you speak is macro nutrient breakdown. Although insulin is often blamed for some of these effects, there’s more to the picture. This is the subject of part 3 of the series…stay tuned.
@Dan A: If you feed two people equal calories, their weight/fat will be the same. At certain points (such as extreme leanness) macros become important, but most studies showing lower-carb diets supremacy are done with free eating (not set calories, or self-recorded intakes – woefully inaccurate), higher protein intakes and so on, which makes them eat less, better balanced blood sugars etc, which is why they lose more weight. This also factors in with insulin resistant people, but in 90% of cases, a calorie is a calorie. So if a low-carb diet balances your blood sugars, helps you feel less hungry and helps you comply to your lower calorie intake, is it good? Sure, but don’t imagine that you can eat a 10000 calorie ketogenic diet and lose weight because you’re not spiking your insulin levels.
I think this article is great. People will take it out of context but the author seems like he is talking about a healthy individual with no medical problems specifically related to the digestion of food. And as far as the calorie argument goes I still think the jury is out on that one and evidence can lead to both sides. I think, due to the marketing the industry has done, people want to believe that a calorie isn’t a calorie but if you look at the clinical definition of a calorie it seems that a calorie is a calorie.
While I don’t have any concrete research aside from my interaction with clients and watching behavioral eating patterns, it seems as though if one is eating a majority of there calories from crap meals that raise insulin they eventually adapt and don’t become so sensitive to some of the food choices. A small difference in eating lifestyle change yields results because (and again this is just based off of my experience with clients and brief research) mos t of the industry standard “good” foods are naturally lower in calories and the way we group meals together makes it very easy to account for the total calories and ratios consumed.
If meal A is: Two Mcdonals Sasusage Biscuit and a small orange juice (probably right around the 700 calorie mark)
And we replace A with: 3-4 oz of lean chicken breast, 1 cup of cooked brown rice, and Crystal light, it’s most likely near half the calories and without question far more nutritional if we wish to go by “industry standards.”
Now I do beleive that smaller meals helps in digestion simply because there isnt a shear overload of quantity of food that needs to be digested. But as far as anything else goes, I think that nutrition based off practicality and actual needs as opposed to Joe Weider wisdom will go far beyond the pseudo-science that seems to weave its way into society
There is great nutritional science out there if one is willing to research and while the industry has made things pretty simple and rather effective it is an industry with a brand that will not change anytime soon.
@ Cole
Recent research is showing that high meal (protein) frequency isnt necessarily optimal for muscle building since constantly elevated amino acid levels cause protein synthesis to become refractory. The research shows that less frequent meals that allow large spikes and than drops in amino acids to stimulate protein synthesis more so. This can possibly explain why you’ve improved your body comp by switching from 10 meals to 4-5 keeping calories/protein intake the same.
When studies find that people naturally eat less when eating in a certain way (more meals, or fewer carbs, or whatever), why do so many people discount that as unimportant?
I agree that if you see that people lose weight when they eat 6 meals a day because they naturally eat less, but you assume that they eat the same amount and that their weight loss comes from some other factor, and then you talk up that factor, that’s bad.
But when we realize our error, can we at least acknowledge the complexity of the human psyche and say “Wow, we were way wrong about why that worked. But these studies do show that if you want a way to naturally eat less (and thus lose weight), eating 6x/day will probably help.”
Here’s a thought. Don’t read about it. Try the different approaches for a couple of weeks at a time and see which works best for you mentally, physically, and logistically.
@TheClapp: No one is discounting the hunger-control role that many meals can have, nor are we ignoring the other biological effects. I am keeping the comment thread germane to the theme of the article. If we want to discuss all the tips and tricks for helping one to eat less, then we should also discuss blue table clothes. Research has shown (more than once) that people eat significantly fewer (up to 20%) calories if the food is laid out on a surface that is blue.
Plus, if we are not to ignore the hunger-culling effects of mini-meals, should we also not ignore that committing to such a plan over the long term (years) reduces metabolism in two ways, independent of weight loss? This seems as important for weight maintenance as hunger control.
I wonder about the % of muscle lost along with bodyfat during calorie restrictions. Speaking for myself…..after a week or so on restricted calories my energy level is effected by timing between meals.
@Mike: By definition, you’re right, a calorie is a calorie. The real questions are: 1) Can the body actually get as much energy from a macro nutrient as assigned by the Atwood values (our familiar 9-4-4) and 2) Do different nutrients have difference and significant long-term effects on metabolism that can account for discrepancies, regardless of equal caloric load. If there is a yes to either of these, then we need to reexamine the nutritional logic derived from “a calorie is a calorie”. I’ll say more soon.
Once again, Jimmy Jam is the light in the darkness.
@Kiefer
“Traditionally, the wisdom has been using mini-meals for raising metabolism. Later, when low-glycemic crowds came in, they used the notion that mini-meals would help stabilize insulin levels and allow fat loss. The studies show the opposite. Holding insulin levels at moderate levels throughout the day can impede fat loss. A few spikes during the day are conducive to both fat burning and muscle building.”
Are you saying that ketogenic diets are less effective then moderate carb diets then? Ketogenic diets maintain insulin levels which according to what your saying can impede fatloss and would not be as good as having say carbs post workout…?
Also Layne Norton has cited studies that show meal frequency has nothing to do with “staying anabolic” and those type of thoughts… “keeping anticatabolic” are nonsense..
This opinion/research would help the “Warrior Diet” by Ori Hofmekler out immensely it would appear.
@Joseph: That’s not what I’m saying. Low-glycemic diets aim to keep insulin levels elevated pretty much constantly, but avoid spikes. Ketogenic diets keep insulin levels steady, but very low, giving the body the opportunity to release and burn more FFAs. They exploit different endocrinological effects. One works as advertised (ketogenic) and one falls flat (low-glycemic).
I think everybody’s missing the fact that smaller meals are digested easier. Large meals often leave you feeling lethargic. I know these two different approaches will no doubt affect hormone levels and other important factors. I eat smaller meals every three hours and when I go 4 1/2 or 5 hours without eating I feel jittery and weak regardless of calories consumed up to that point. As soon as hungry is felt and recognized, you will not burn nearly as much fat. I’ve read sumo wrestlers eat once a day and it’s late and huge. I have no research to back my point. However, trial and error is the only way to find out. See what works for you.
Martin Berkhan from http://www.leangains.com has been talking about this 5 YEARS BACK. Old news guys… I cant believe the 6 meals a day myth is still alive in some circles.
I have been If’ing for a month after trying the 4 meals with snacks routine. I’ve never been a breakfast eater, and often went the entire day without eating until supper. I work out just before lunch fasted, having only 10 grams of BCAAs mixed with 5 grams creatine in some sugar free Nestea. I’m doing Boring but Big, and have had no energy issues whatsoever. After I work out I have two protein shakes and a cup of cereal until supper at 5. A small bedtime snack before 8 pm, and nothing to eat again until 1 pm the next day. I don’t get hungry in the morning, just have a couple of coffee. Carbs are usually under 100 grams a day, fat is usually under 30 grams, and protein is usually around 180-200 grams.
I can’t believe some people see 4-5 meals a day as low frequency and 8-10 as high frequency. Are people seriously eating 10 meals a day? I always saw 2-3 meals as low and 4-6 as high.
As for the digestion comments, you have to consider that eating large amounts or eating frequently both stress the digestive system.
One thing I’ve often wondered about magazine ‘information’ and a lot of other training, let’s call it propagandha, is if it’s set-up to make people fail and spend more on the next solution that will inevitably fail them, and the cycle continues.
the problem with going a long time without eating is that you risk getting hypoglycemic, which leads to binges involving foods that are often unhealthy. if you can eat exactly the same amount of calories in 3 meals compared to 6, than yeah, it shouldnt make a difference. but if eating 6 meals/day prevents you from getting hypoglycemic and thus decreases total calories, its definitely advantageous.
@John Nakamura: I know. I’ve been trying to kill this for some time. I published it in my book 6 years ago.
Very good read and backed up by science. I fiend more and more people are heading in this reaction. Let’s see where it takes us. VBR
with your carbs at nite approach, do you still consume carbs in the evenings that you don’t train?
@John Nakamura: The “6 meals a day” practice is not a “myth”, unless you are talking ONLY about it being mandatory for losing fat. That is obviously not true, as has been known for years, and this is Kiefer’s basic point. But many people do cut successfully with multiple small meals per day, because it helps with hunger control. And most people who are bulking with many thousands of calories per day use multiple meals simply to make the meal sizes manageable.
Berkhan’s version of IF (and there are many others) actually allows multiple small meals, too, since he calls for all feeding to be completed within an 8-hour period. Five meals, spaced two hours apart, would meet his recommendation. Thus, the meal count alone is not what is really important.
@ Kiefer Whew, I read all of the replies before mine. You should be proud to bring to topic a very important discussion that can help us to better succeed in our nutritional goals. I’d just like to quote you in your last paragraph and add my two cents,
“Granted, this is Elite, and you’re reading this because you’re willing to make the sacrifices and accept the challenges of being extra-ordinary, but for those of you who train others who might not be on the path to exceptional, telling them they must eat every few hours—as I’ve heard and read from trainers countless times—can set them up for failure.”
Simply put, advanced fitness doesn’t always mean ‘healthy’, so if your goal is to maximize either of them then read this article again with whichever intent is more important to you.
Great article!!
Daniel
When does your body go to your muscles for energy? Wouldn’t this happen if you don’t take in protein regularly throughout the day?
Good article! It sucks that so many people buy into the idea that more frequent meals “stokes the fire” of metabolism (as it’s often marketed as doing), when it is clearly false.
As for hunger problems, a higher meal frequency can help some people, but for a lot of others it actually can add to hunger when dieting. When I first started training, I did the eat everything in sight bulking plan in order to gain a ton of muscle. It worked, but I gained a ton of fat as well. When I went about losing it, I did the highly acclaimed 2-3 hour meal frequency diet. It sucked. I ate 6-8 times per day, but I never got full. Instead of calming my hunger throughout the day, it just made me hungry all the time. Add to that the inconvenience of having to make sure all my meals were prepared and carrying a lunchbox of food around with me, it ended up being a huge annoyance.
Even once my “diet” was over and I switched to maintenance calories (~3000-3500), I still was hungry all day eating 6-7 meals. It seemed I needed at least 1000 calories per meal to feel satisfied.
After that, I ended up cutting my meals down to only a big lunch and a big dinner, and I felt much better throughout the day.
Did you get my comment? Put it up and see what people say. Your logic is out-dated and doesn’t hold up to what nutritional biochemists, like Stephen Cherniske say. Read his “Metabolic Plan” and you will have a better understanding.
Why are there so many Natural Bodybuilders, who don’t take drugs and are persons who can achieve a lean state without losing too much muscle in the process, sold on multiple meals to achieve a lean state and lifestyle, and also know how to eat to gain muscle? I believe it all boils down to the intensity of the workouts, avoiding the incorrect reliance on aerobics, and maintaining blood sugar over the 16 to 17 hours we are awake. Aside from genetics the quality of the specimen is dependent on 1. How we eat 2. How we exert…how we push and pull 2-4 times a week to the degree that requires a hormonal need to change or maintain 3. How well we get to stage 4 sleep, where the hormonal sequencing is set, based upon the quality and frequency and amounts that we eat, and the hormonal need to rebuild and/or maintain bone, organ and muscle density.
@ Gregory Waldrip: Which “logic is outdated”? The basic contentions in Kiefer’s article are that multiple meals per day are not mandatory for losing bodyfat, and that they do not cause the metabolism to increase during an extended period of caloric deficit. These facts have been known for years, and are not disproved by anything that bodybuilders do. As already noted, multiple meals can help many people with hunger management or avoiding a temporary metabolic depression, but that does not make them absolutely necessary for lipolysis.
Markus: Fat is brought into the blood stream, from storage, mainly as a result of the insulin/glucagon balance from the Pancreas. The fat cell that stores the fat is mainly stimulated to release this stored energy by the hormone glucagon (Energy comes from blood sugar, glycogen stored in the muscle and liver and stored fat). Since we all have a relatively finite amount of lean mass receptors at any given time and lets say that these lean mass receptors can utilize 400 calories of blood sugar and not be able to utilize anymore for, depending on the health and muscle mass of the individual, for 3-4 hours and excess calories require excess insulin and if the lean receptors are full, guess what, we store fat….these calories don’t wait to be used as lean mass fuel. If we then go longer than 4-5 hours without eating we enter low blood sugar, also regarded as fat sparing, at the expense of lean mass, Without a good positive to nitrogen balance in the blood stream, which stimulates more glucgon to be present, it easy to see why the average US male loses 4-6 pounds of lean mass every decade past 20 years. We need to push and pull, we need to eat throughout the day and we need to do these so that we can get to level 4 REM sleep. Pre-agricultural humans grazed throughout of the day and 34% of their diet was protein. They pushed and pulled as required by their lifestyle and were much healthier than Post-agricultural man. Lifestyle dictates the main factors to health and fitness. Eating is a very hormonal experience and diet allows the blood to deliver the necessary antioxidants needed to stay healthy. We need Macro and Micro nutrients throughout the day. Calorie amount is key, as is nutrition timing. Incorrect dieting to lose weight causes, especially without weight bearing exercise, losses in muscle, bone and organ density. Exerting for health without understanding the fueling requirements leads to failure and muscle loss. Most trainers, and Doctors do not understand nutrition. World class trainers, like Charles Piloquin, and the personal trainers for many pro athletes are also expert in nutrition. There are many of us who can structure a meal series and exercise program to help people. Look what Bill Phillips did with his #1 selling book Body for Life.
Gregory, you seem to be merely repeating a lot of disconnected phrases that you have read. No one here is suggesting that eating multiple meals throughout the day is “wrong”. Kiefer’s article is just pointing out that multiple meals are not “required” in order to lose fat. The number of people who choose to eat fewer meals and still maintain low bodyfat testifies to this fact. Your attempt to recap some details about things such as blood sugar, ancient eating habits, nitrogen balance, and REM sleep (a few of which you clearly misunderstand) are irrelevant.
For many people, multiple daily meals will be productive, because of hunger control, blood-sugar stabilization, easier meal digestion, etc. But for other people, these issues are not problematic, thus their diets do not need to have greater meal frequencies. Both types of people can achieve successful lipolysis. This is the main point.
Markus,I believe that the majority of people will find greater lifetime success with maintaining muscle mass and controlling body weight by eating multiple meals from within the total calorie limit per day. Call it what you will.I certainly have read a lot and also have witnessed the results of various approaches to weight reduction. As an example; if a person stops eating at 18:00 and doesn’t eat again until 12:00 the next day, other than drinking coffee, there is no way that they can maintain their bone, organ and muscle density through out their life time…they would need to push and pull to fatigue the body enough to cause the hormone shift needed to build and maintain muscle. I’m saying the “Ideal” way to a lifetime of fitness and weight control is 3-4 sessions of physical exertion, by pushing and pulling, combined with multiple meals, to fuel lean mass, maintain blood sugar levels and supply the necessary nutrients for good hormone production and antioxidant protection. I believe after the 3-4 weeks it takes to shift the body from a sugar burning, fat sparing body, to a fat burning metabolism, which requires a hormonal shift brought on by nutrition timing, the majority of people will have a better understanding of what it really takes to stay healthy. Good health is always difficult to maintain when people say they are too busy to exercise and give into the joys of comfort eating. Like the old saying goes…you can dress up a lie, but the truth can walk around naked. At 58 years old and training 10-12 people per day, 4 days a week, at a gym in Bangkok, Thailand, I can see, as I did when I worked in the US, the obvious lack of muscle mass that comes with age when people don’t push and pull with enough intensity, and don’t eat in a way that is contributes to good health. I believe that people who train race horses know more about diet and exercise than most trainers I have seen working in gyms. Going to an aerobics class at 11:00 after not eating since 21:00-22:00 the night before and then overeating after the aerobics class is obviously not the route to fitness. When’s the last time you heard a trainer mention diet to a person who has no clue about how to get healthy. Fat does not evaporate when you jog. Healthy people with adequate muscle mass can burn up to 40 grams of “Stored Fat” per hour running. This does not include blood sugar and energy stores in muscle and liver. The majority of this fat is delivered to the blood stream when the hormone Glucagon triggers the release from the Fat cell. Insulin stores/glucagon keeps glucose levels up by pulling fat from storage. The more glucagon in the blood stream the more Fat is pulled from storage. Maintaining blood sugar level with adequate protein and sufficient Essential Fats helps to maintain adequate glucagon as well as other hormone levels. The greater percentage of people will find success understanding this approach. Again, have you seen the results Bill Phillips achieved with his best selling book Body For Life. Reality is not always easy to achieve, but it will still be reality. I wonder how Kiefer measures his success? Does he suggest a person can maintain muscle mass to a great degree with his approach. How does he define good health and success in achieving it?
I should say 3-4 sessions of pushing and pulling per week. I say it this way because many people are always looking for ways to get healthy and fit without weight training….but since free weights, machines and cables already have those conveniently located handles, why not go with them? Aerobics does not build muscle, especially in the upper body. When the back muscles atrophy, the shoulders come forward and back problems can occur. This combined with the hips shifting forward to to muscle loss puts a person on the path to back pain and greater muscle atrophy. As we age muscle is our best friend. It helps us get out of chairs and climb stairs. If you do not maintain your lean mass, you will not be able to maintain adequate aerobic fitness in the last 15-20 years of your life. Quality of life being key.
I appreciate that you have a lot of random thoughts that you want to share, Gregory, but they continue to provide no support for your original claim that Kiefer’s “logic is outdated”.
Therefore, I’ll assume you now recognize that, as I wrote, “multiple meals per day are not mandatory for losing bodyfat,” something which has “been known for years…”
As Kiefer states in his last paragraph, multiple meals peak the anabolic environment. If we are not in an anabolic environment, we are most usually in a catabolic environment, which wastes muscle and other lean masses. Since most men in the US lose 4-6 pounds of lean mass every decade past their 20th year, it easy, for some of us, to see that lack of strength training and incorrect diet lead to what America has turned into. A country made up of overweight people in bad physical shape. To lose stored body fat in a catabolic environment is dangerous and destructive to our overall health. As I said before, and it is not just random thoughts, I am a Certified Fitness Trainer and Diet Coach…utilizing stored fat as energy is done with hormones. Stored fat calories do not evaporate while doing aerobics, they are drawn from fat cells and put in the blood stream to be used as energy due to a hormonal presents that is more present when multiple meals throughout the day are a regular occurrence, allowing our dietary/hormonal system to operate the way it was designed to. To increase the amount of these necessary hormones we must have food intake throughout the 16-18 hours that we are awake. We also need this food intake to give us the antioxidant protection we need to fend off sickness and disease. I maybe shouldn’t have said that Kiefer’s logic is outdated, it’s laughable by anyone who knows what it takes to stay lean and fit. My thoughts are not random, I am a competitive Masters level body builder and know how to lean down fast. Most people who are in the health and fitness industry who actually work with weight control would disagree with Kiefer. We know the importance of nutrition timing before and after exercise and have the determination to do what it takes. It doesn’t make you a better person, it just allows you to be a healthier person. More researchers would disagree with Kiefer, I am sure. Especially those of us who actually work with people to help change their lifestyle habits. It would be interesting for him to give his strategy for leaning down to a healthier weight and at the same time maintaining muscle, bone and organ density at healthy levels.
Markus….one more thing. On your July 17 posting what exactly did you mean when you stated that, ” multiple meals do not cause a metabolic increase during an extended period of calorie deficit”? What are you trying to say here? How can you have both multiple meals…calories, at the same time experiencing long periods of no…calories….no meals. Have you ever studied nutrition or received any certifications or any education in fitness training? Have you ever taught people how to put on or to lose weight. I have and still do.
Gregory, you continue to miss the forest for the trees, so here’s the relevant take-away:
Kiefer wrote an article about meal frequency. You claimed that its “logic is outdated”. I asked you to explain or prove your statement. Five posts later, you still haven’t done so, and you correspondingly now write, “I maybe shouldn’t have said that Kiefer’s logic is outdated.”
See? Much ado about nothing.
The point is not to try to “win” an argument, but to explore and challenge any physiological conclusions based on clinical evidence. You went off course by missing what I wrote above: “No one here is suggesting that eating multiple meals throughout the day is ‘wrong’. Kiefer’s article is just pointing out that multiple meals are not ‘required’ in order to lose fat. The number of people who choose to eat fewer meals and still maintain low bodyfat testifies to this fact.”
Regarding your question about caloric deficits and metabolism: “How can you have both multiple meals…calories, at the same time experiencing long periods of no…calories….no meals?” The answer is that you are confused about what a caloric deficit is. It is not a complete absence of calories, it is a shortage of calories. Since you claim to have an extensive education in nutrition, you now should be able to understand the basic piece of information in my original statement.
I’m just trying to illustrate the best and most successful way to deal with losing body fat and maintaining a diet that maintains as much lean mass as possible, as well as the bodies natural method of ingesting foods that contain macro nutrients and antioxidants that better promote optimal health. Too many articles seem to avoid the basic truths of dietary health and how it is coordinated with exercise and restful sleep. Diet, exercise and sleep are the main variables to good health, other than genetics given at birth. I have read too many articles that seem to ignore the overall truths of fitness and health. These articles, like Kiefer’s article, often give people the type of information that prevents them from seeking out, or being open mined to the more accurate truths to fitness and health. To even discuss weight loss without including discussion about exercise and meal timing, does more harm that good, I believe. I do know what calorie deficit is, but didn’t think you did…I apologize. I do think it is better to understand the extremes of calorie deficit and the health risks, other than fat loss. I also think it better serves a readership to discuss the amounts of lean mass lost while losing this stored fat, with these “you don’t need to eat multiple meals” advocates. Humans are designed to eat throughout the day. Informed humans know what the make up of the various feedings should be to satisfy nutrition needs optimally.
In the opening sentence, in Kiefer’s article, after the heading “Logic” he states that, “If the body has to wait too long between meals, it suddenly thinks it’s starving and begins to store fat, but if it feels adequately fueled, it will release fat and those extra pounds melt away”….This absolutely wrong and any lower division nutrition student knows that if we wait too long between meal we get into low blood sugar and this is a state of FAT SPARING, at the expense of lean mass. Our bodies are programmed to spare fat when it senses famine…this is where, as I mentioned before, the average US male loses a lot on muscle, bone and organ mass past the age of 20. Fat is not released from the fat cells unless stimulated by hormones. These hormones are more present when there has been adequate protein ingested on regular basis, (good nutrition), and the blood sugar is not in an elevated state(Fat storing) nor in a low state(Fat sparing)that normally occurs after 3-4 hours of not eating, and depending on what you eat and in what combination. This statement alone flaws his logic….don’t you agree? The key to eating to lose fat is to understand the calorie deficit requirement combined with exercise and adequate water consumption. For those of us who regularly help people arrive at the target calorie range for a diet will advise people, depending upon their overall lean to fat amounts, age and health factors, that we need to feed the lean mass adequately with Essential Fat requirements as well as fruits, vegetables and varying types of protein throughout the day,as well as unrefined carbs. The total calorie amounts are arrived at usually work out to 10 to 12 multiplied by the persons lean mass, divided by 4-6 meals per day, along with 3-4 sessions of weight training, for 25-45 minutes per session, drinking a lot of water. Aerobics should be no more than 3 sessions per week at no more than 30 minutes per session, according to Dr. Kenneth Cooper, from his Cooper Institute.This usually results in a loss of 1-11/2 pounds of fat lost per month. The initial drop in weight is usually water weight due to restricting carbs, which require 3 grams of water per gram of carb ingested to go full cycle through your system. On most people, to eat 13-15 times their lean mass allows them to stay relatively unchanged, as far as weight goes. After 2-3 months of good eating and exertion, muscle mass is starting to return and the diet can be tweaked per person. This is where people usually shy away, unfortunately and bad articles don’t help. Eating is much like understanding your finances, the more you know the better your retirement years.