Ask the Coaches: Is Six Meals a Day Best for Weight Loss?

Written by Tim Skwiat

6 Meals a Day

Q: I used to eat larger meals 3 to 4 times per day, but my personal trainer recommended I eat more frequently to stoke my metabolism as I’m trying to drop some pounds as quickly as possible. So I have changed up to every 3 to 4 hours and reduced my caloric intake considerably. But I’m wondering if this really helps because it’s so much work. I’ve also fasted in the past, and it worked well for me.

So my question now is, which is really best? Is six meals a day best? Does meal frequency really matter that much?

Thanks for your help!

-Anna

A: Anna, it sounds like you’re ready to make serious changes. Whether it’s doctor’s orders, an upcoming high school reunion, a New Year’s resolution, a significant other (or, potential significant other), or that pair of skinny jeans staring at you in the closet, you have the motivation you need to get started on your weight-loss journey. You’ve signed up for a personal trainer. You’ve got all of your BioTrust supplements. You’re ready to take on the dreaded d-word: The Diet.

So it’s only natural you’re starting to ask one of the first questions we hear from many people starting on this journey. “When it comes to body composition and fat loss, does meal frequency matter?

You might find this surprising with all of the strongly held opinions around this subject—including your trainer’s—but the conditional answer is no. Meal frequency probably doesn’t matter.

It’s conditional because it does hinge on the much more important factors of food choices and portion control. That is, when calories and macronutrients are controlled, meal frequency doesn’t matter. Better said, if you eat the right types of food (i.e., food choices) in the right amounts (i.e., portion control), meal frequency becomes a matter of personal preference.

Thus, if you do a better job of eating more metabolism-boosting protein and health-promoting vegetables over the course of six meals a day, then that may be the best strategy for you. However, if you do better with a few larger meals, then go for it.

Are There Downsides to Six Meals a Day?

Yes, there are downsides to each approach. Starting with smaller, more frequent feedings, it just doesn’t bode well for many people for some of the following reasons:

Downside to six meals a day:

  • • It typically requires significant meal planning and preparation.
  • • Many people “watch the clock” either waiting for the next meal or making sure they don’t miss one.
  • • You spend a lot of time eating.
  • • Many folks tend to schedule their days around their meals.
  • • This population tends to be more apt to get HANGRY.

Downside to three meals a day:

  • • Some folks have a much harder time with portion control.
  • • Likewise, some people will find it more challenging to include as much nutrient-dense food in a shorter period of time and/or fewer feedings.

Research Says…?

Is there any research that actually compares meal frequency? Yes, as a matter of fact, there is quite a bit of research on the topic. Researchers from Purdue performed a meal frequency experiment where they divided overweight men into multiple groups. One group consumed six meals a day, evenly spread out every two hours. Another group consumed precisely the same total number of calories in three feedings, which were separated by five hours. Both groups were following a calorie-restricted diet, but the scientists noted no significant differences in weight loss as a result of meal frequency.

Interestingly, the authors of the study did find that those subjects who ate fewer, larger meals experienced greater late-night fullness, which could potentially reduce the chances of snacking. Furthermore, the researchers noted that there were more compliance issues with the group assigned to eating six meals per day. On top of the meal frequency portion of the study, the scientists found that, compared to a normal-protein diet (i.e., 14% of calories), a high-protein diet (i.e., 25% of calories) collectively led to improved appetite and satiety and lower late-night urges to eat as well as reduced preoccupation with food.

In another study that appeared in the British Journal of Nutrition, scientists again separated subjects into high meal frequency (i.e., 6 meals per day) and low meal frequency (i.e., 3 meals per day) groups. Both groups of subjects followed a reduced-calorie diet, and at the end of eight weeks, the researchers found no significant difference in body weight, fat mass, lean body mass, or body mass index. The authors concluded that increased meal frequency “does not promote greater body weight loss.”

Super Belly Fat Burning Combo:

Turn up your body’s ability to burn fat and reduce fat storage with our powerful combination of Conjugated Lineolic Acid (CLA) and pomegranate seed oil.

==>Get BellyTrim XP™ up to 20% OFF + 2 FREE Reports

In a study funded by the National Institute on Aging and the US Department of Agriculture, researchers questioned the notion that, despite its commonality, “three squares” (i.e., three meals a day) is optimal for health. The scientists separated subjects into two groups. One group consumed three meals per day while the other group consumed only one.

The groups both consumed an equal number of calories daily, which were assigned at maintenance level (i.e., not a calorie-restricted study). After eight weeks, the researchers found that reduced meal frequency (i.e., one meal per day), without a reduction in calories, led to a significant modification in body composition including reductions in body fat, as well as a significant decrease in cortisol.

Perhaps most important, the renowned International Society of Sports Nutrition, one of the world’s top authorities on sports nutrition, recently released their position stand on meal frequency. It should be noted that, when an organization of this magnitude issues a position statement on any given topic, it’s typically regarded as solid evidence—the closest to the truth as we know from science.

In said statement, the organization concluded that increasing meal frequency does not appear to favorably change body composition.

Can You Stoke Your Metabolism?

What about the idea of “stoking” the metabolism with smaller, more frequent meals (like six meals a day)?

There are several components that make up one’s metabolic rate (i.e., energy expenditure). The argument on consuming smaller, more frequent meals to stoke metabolism rests on the notion that eating more frequently will increase what’s known as the Thermic Effect of Feeding (TEF), which refers to the amount of energy the body uses to digest, absorb, and assimilate all of the nutrients we consume (from food).

This ONE food burns 350 calories (eat it today)

For every 1000 calories of this food that you eat, your body will automatically burn 350 calories. That means you get 350 FREE calories just by eating this one food. There’s no other food on the planet that can claim that! What food is it? You’ll be shocked to find out (and it’s absolutely delicious!)…

==>Burn 350 calories today by eating this ONE food

Sure, it makes sense. If you eat 6 meals a day, there will be more increases (i.e., pulses) in metabolic rate due to the TEF associated with each meal. However, do more pulses mean a greater overall response? Nope. As a matter of fact, the most extensive review of studies performed on TEF and various meal frequencies, ranging between 1 and 17 meals, concluded:

“Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging.” [NOTE: This is NOT an excuse to gorge oneself. Rather, it is to make a point regarding TEF. This is a completely other issue in and of itself.]

Furthermore, the researchers also negated the notion that meal frequency has an effect on weight loss and concluded that “any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.” Hmmm… that sounds a lot like food choices and portion control.

Starvation Mode?

You may have heard that if you miss a meal, the body will go into starvation mode. But is that true?

Not so much. Efficient adaptation to famine was no doubt a significant metabolic consequence during evolution. A decrease in metabolic rate during times of starvation was actually a good thing, as it increased the likelihood of living until one perhaps found some sustenance.

However, it’s important to delineate starvation from missing a meal or even fasting for 24 hours. The idea that skipping a meal or implementing a short fast or intermittent fasting (IF) results in a reduced metabolic rate is not substantiated by science.

As a matter of fact, the earliest that scientific research has noted a decrease in metabolic rate in response to fasting is after 60 hours, which resulted in an 8% drop. Other research has shown that a dip in metabolic rate does not occur until 72 to 90 hours of fasting. Even with more pronounced IF protocols that implement daily fasts, the longest time without food is typically about 36 hours, which may actually have the opposite-than-expected effect on metabolic rate.

Ironically, there is frequently a short-term boost in metabolism with fasting. Studies have shown an increase of 4 to 10% in metabolic rate with fasting up to 36 – 48 hours. This likely is the result of increased catecholamines (i.e., epinephrine and norepinephrine), which serve to provide more energy and sharpen focus. This can be seen as desirable as the body is now in somewhat of a “fight” mode to find food.

At some point—as mentioned above—this would be counterproductive, and the body would have to decrease metabolic rate in order to simply survive.

With all that being said, the best approach, in terms of meal frequency, may be the one that best works for you. That is, as long as you choose the right types of foods and eat them in the appropriate amounts, then meal frequency doesn’t matter.

I hope this helps, Anna!

-Coach Tim

These 7 FATTY FOODS reduce stomach flab fast:

While you may have been told that fatty foods are BAD news for your waistline, what you probably didn’t realize is that there are certain “exotic super fats” that can actually accelerate your fat burning and reduce stomach flab… FAST!

Even better, we show you exactly which “super fats” these are in his brand new free report, 7 FATTY FOODS for a Flat Stomach!  Download your free copy in just a few seconds here:

==>These 7 FATTY FOODS reduce stomach flab FAST 

BioTrust Nutrition- Share on Social
Share To:

More From Tim Skwiat

  • Invictus_Lux

    I used to believe that eating more frequent meals helped keep metabolism revved up. What I am learning is that as you age this can backfire completely due to the organs (Liver, Pancreas) having to dump glycogen/glucose and insulin more often and not being able to manufacture enough if you have some prior damaged/degraded function (eg Beta cell atrophy). The organs do need TIME to replenish various biologicals and shifting metabolic gears too often can waste precious stuff – e.g. dumping quantums of insulin or glucose that is out of sync with the energy need curve and other paired organ.

    I’d try to stay in fat burning mode more often by getting body to switch to fat as a preferred fuel (more ketosis oriented) than risking going in and out of sugar/glucose burning by stimulating the liver to dump its stores.

    Fat is a much cleaner and better fuel for the body.

    • Cristina

      We appreciate your feedback and your willingness to share your perspective.

      Simply put, meal frequency will have an impact on blood glucose levels, however, the degree to which this occurs depends on the type of meals, i.e., how they are composed, and the health of the individual.

      I could explain this in greater detail, but Martin Berkhan, author of LeanGains, has discussed the fallacy that more frequent meals means
      better blood glucose management, here:

      Better Blood Glucose with Lower Meal Frequency – Martin uses profane language on occasion, but his writing style and understanding of scientific literature is pretty stellar. It’s worth the read.

      There are also some studies that show that people who eat fewer, larger meals, have lower blood glucose levels on average. They may have bigger spikes in blood sugar, but overall their levels are much lower.

      In addition, for some folks, less frequent eating has also been shown to improve satiety, and reduce hunger, compared to more frequent meals.

      The following is a study done by the American Diabetes Association on the Effects of Meal Frequency on Blood Glucose, wherein they concluded a higher meal frequency acutely subdues glucose excursions and reduces insulin and FFA levels during the daytime in older NIDDM subjects.

      Another similar study performed by Science Direct titled Effect of Meal Frequency on Glucose and Insulin, yielded similar results.

      In the end, if you decide to consume more frequent meals, make sure you’re consuming ample protein at each individual meal; this seems to attenuate any acute blood glucose or insulin issues. If you have a medical condition, e.g., diabetes, it would be best to discuss your options with a physician or registered dietitian.

      From an appetite standpoint, research does not conclude there is any benefit in increasing meal frequency, however, reducing meal frequency
      below 3 meals per day may actually increase appetite and reduce satiety, even in cases where calorie needs are being met. Thus, I have found that personally, having three to six meals per day is optimal for one’s body composition and general well-being.

      The effect of eating frequency on appetite control and food intake: brief synopsis of controlled feeding studies

      Bottom line it all boils down to what works for YOU, as an individual.

      • Invictus_Lux

        The article you linked me to, Martin’s. throws the following page error:
        Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.

        Do I have to be a subscriber to gain access to the target document?

        • Hi Invictus_Lux,

          Sorry about the issue with the broken link. We’ve tidied it all up, and it should be working now. Hope that you find these resources helpful. Please let us know if you have any additional questions or feedback. Thank you!

  • Martin Miranda

    Great article. I only consume two meals a day with no snacks and only water in between them. Many people forget an important point: we do not digest our food with air. We need enzymes and those take a long time to produce. Furthermore, our digestive system needs rest, so when we wait four or five hours between meals, we are doing our stomachs a favor. If we consume whole, unrefined foods and include fiber in our meals, we are not going to be hungry in between. For the first four to six days we might feel “hunger” but a drink of water at room temperature will take care of that and our bodies will adapt to the new lifestyle. I also limit the liquid that I consume with meals to no more than three or four ounces and sometimes none at all. Liquids require that the stomach spend time eliminating them in order to not have diluted gastric juices. Liquids should be taken only at the end of the meal so we do not interfere with the breaking down of starches by the saliva. By the way, following these ideas helped a friend of mine shed 50 pounds in a few weeks. It is all a common sense protocol.

    • Hi Martin,

      I hope you’re doing well, my friend! Thanks so much for taking the time to share your feedback; I really appreciate the encouragement, and we really appreciate you giving us a glimpse into your winning formula. Kudos to you for finding what works best for you! That is equally awesome that you’ve been able to help guide your friend to drop 50 pounds; incredible!

      By chance, have you heard of Dr. Satchin Panda? He’s done some really incredible research on time-restricted feeding, particularly as it relates to circadian rhythms. If you have already, you might find his website to be pretty fascinating:

      My Circadian Clock

      Along those lines, I’d be curious to hear more about the timing of your meals and whether you’ve spent much time looking into circadian biology.

      Keep up the great work, my friend!