1

votes

What meal frequency is better for fat loss, 5 to 6 meals or 1-2 meals a day?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created March 20, 2012 at 6:28 PM

What meal frequency is better for fat loss, 5 to 6 meals or 1-2 meals a day?

What are your thoughts on meal frequency and what has worked for you? Do you do the same routine with foods or do you change it up till you attain your goal?

There seems to be two schools of thoughts on meal frequency for fat loss, keeping blood sugar levels balanced and cortisol levels in check, eating 5-6 meals a day, or the IF approach, by tapping the fat storage with 1-2 meals a day and eating during the feeding window.

Ebb10603524dd22621c1155dd7ddf106

(19150)

on March 21, 2012
at 02:18 PM

Agree, simple good answer. There's tons of ways to optimize, but less calories is the first step. Personally, 1-2 meals a day would have me bingeing by the 3rd day or so.

1ec4e7ca085b7f8d5821529653e1e35a

(5506)

on March 21, 2012
at 12:04 PM

This is the perfect answer Travis

Medium avatar

(39821)

on March 20, 2012
at 07:28 PM

Whichever one for you results in the fewest calories consumed per day.

  • Bf76cedd52060b1777ea7a8076e50866

    asked by

    (691)
  • Views
    2.3K
  • Last Activity
    1430D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

8 Answers

5
8634d4988ced45a68e2a79e69cc01835

(1617)

on March 20, 2012
at 06:54 PM

I'm finding that it really depends on who you are. Intermittent fasting stressed my body too much when coupled with my exercise routine, and I ended up very unhappy. I've read that some women have trouble with the fasting/eating window thing raising cortisol too high. If your body is stressed, don't fast, especially if you are female. I might try it again once I get past this overtraining issue I'm working out.

The tons-o-minimeals thing CAN work for you, if done exactly right. It's a pain in the butt though, with all the planning, measuring, and carrying food around. There is no way I could do that. At the moment I'm eating when I'm hungry, eating the right things, and not over/under eating. I do want to get my bodyfat % lower (it's at 16% now), but fasting is just not the way to do it at the moment.

I'd say try both! Why not! Try one for several weeks or a month or two, and if you don't see any results whatsoever, try the other. That way you can test-drive both and see what you like and what works best for you.

3
F3fc2e0a9577e7e481a387d917904d1e

(1070)

on March 20, 2012
at 11:37 PM

Whichever allows you to more easily create a calorie deficit.

3
Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

on March 20, 2012
at 07:26 PM

There's no inherent benefit to any particular meal frequency. It depends on your ability to implement any plan. I feel that variation is natural - feeling no obligation to eat certain meals at certain times means I'm eating less. I also find extended fasting periods natural - with a little conscious effort I can avoid eating even though food is available. Once I start to eat, even if it's only a small something, I inevitably end up eating more sooner than if I'd not kicked things off. Most importantly perhaps, my eating patterns fit with the foods I'm choosing to eat. Eating or not eating now is something that may affect me physically in several days time but feels largely unrelated to my mood, energy, performance etc. today.

Trying to micromanage hormone (and blood sugar) levels by controlling intake hour by hour was tedious, prevented enjoyment of many proper meals, made me dependent on the feeding schedule and was fundamentally working against my body.

1
Fc891327db916c10347b008acde0daca

(1022)

on March 20, 2012
at 06:45 PM

The second one, aka 2 meals in a 8-hour window. It has helped me with Hunger Issues and is best for my mood I found out..

0
6fece842bd1bcf5724f458a302a2156e

on June 30, 2013
at 06:06 PM

Certainly for happiness, depression, food addiction having fewer regular meals with enough fat and protein that you are not hungry for 5 or 6 hours works best for many women, particularly those you use to graze all day, over eat and never feel hungry. It gives the body time to stablise and relax between means. Not snacking has always been the key to me to getting eating within control.

I have for the last 2 days had a slightly later breakfast and then a big meal of a late lunch and then not been hungry later and may be this 2 meals is going to work for me. We'll see. I probably eat less and 2 meals not three. (I have weight to lose).

0
3222194cabc8d3d0bb5054f3536993db

on March 21, 2012
at 11:49 AM

I think it's different for each person, I've tried both and found that the IF approach works best. In hindsight this should've been obvious for me as I've never been a breakfast person and regularly went from 6-7pm at night until 12-1pm the following day before I ate. So the transition to missing lunch as well and eating after i've trained in the evening was quite easy and I've started seeing good results regarding weight loss.

0
Medium avatar

on March 20, 2012
at 07:15 PM

3 meals with snacks mid-morning and mid-afternoon and mid-evening helped me to lose 40 lbs.

0
Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 20, 2012
at 07:04 PM

I started on the small meals/snacks approach to control high diabetic blood sugar. It worked for that and for weight loss.

Once you set up a routine it's hard to break it. After 5 years on the minimeals I get cranky if I spread it into bigger meals on a wider space. A definite downside.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!