19 replies to this topic

[ta5]

All else being equal, is it better to eat 2 or 3 meals per day? Is one healthier or better for longevity?

Assume:

• Moderate CR
• Equal calories
• Same foods
• Hunger and weight are not an issue

If 2 meals per day is better, when should they be?

I've tried both. I can do either.

Thanks.

[bestbefore]

It really doesn't matter. Do whatever you like.

[tunt01]

It depends on who you talk to, but I would probably say that 2 meals that are reasonably well spaced is better (say 9-10 AM and 4-5 PM). Increased total time away from food is probably going to lead to a higher duration of autophagy and cellular housekeeping.

[ta5]

Thanks Prophets.

To increase autophagy, wouldn't it be better to put the two meals as close as possible? That way, I would have a longer fast between days. If I eat 1-1:30pm and 4:30-5pm, then I would fast 5pm-1pm (20 hours). I can eat any times, but I need at least 3 hours between meals or I might get a stomach ache.

[tunt01]

To increase autophagy, wouldn't it be better to put the two meals as close as possible? That way, I would have a longer fast between days. If I eat 1-1:30pm and 4:30-5pm, then I would fast 5pm-1pm (20 hours). I can eat any times, but I need at least 3 hours between meals or I might get a stomach ache.

Honestly, I don't know the answer to that question. I'm also not sure anyone has good data (at least that I'm aware of) on which exact routine is superior. There are also potentially confounding factors, like what if you eat all your major protein intake in 1 meal but eat mostly carb/fat with low/minimal protein in the second meal.

IDK the answer to be honest. I think 2 meals, reasonably well spaced is best. Probably with most of your protein put in 1 meal just after you exercise.

Edited by prophets, 10 June 2013 - 03:12 AM.

[DR01D]

2 meals is probably healthiest because your blood sugar will stay lower for a longer portion of the day.

Jack Lelanne ate 2 meals per day.

[drtom]

Why not 1 meal per day? (I do that 3 days per week, but some people eat only 1 meal per day, every day.)

I believe there is a religious group (7-th Day Adventists??) that practises eating 2 meals per day; breakfast and dinner in the evening. (No lunch)
I understand they live substantially longer than the average. Sorry, but no references and I can't recall the exact details but you could probably track it down.
Benefits might be due to lower plasma sugar, but could also be confounded by less smoking, less red meat intake etc etc.

[ta5]

Why not 1 meal per day?

Interesting idea.


For me, I think 1 meal per day is too much food to eat at one sitting. I would be so stuffed. I don't eat processed foods, no dairy, no grains. I limit fat and protein (not low fat or protein, but I only want a certain amount). So, getting 1800 calories from green veges, fish, and fruit, for example, is a large volume of food. Eating double the size of one of my 2-meals-per-day meals seems like a lot.

Then again, if 1 meal per day is better than 2, then why not every other day? But, that's the same problem.

I would lean toward 2 meals per day, but... So many experts say breakfast is the most important meal of the day. If I only eat twice, breakfast is the easiest meal to skip. I haven't seen convincing evidence (maybe it's out there and I'm just am not aware) that intermittent fasting is any better given the same number of calories. So, that makes me lean towards 3 meals per day so I can include breakfast. But, I wonder how beneficial breakfast is for someone not worried about their weight.

[DR01D]

When I don't eat breakfast I feel TERRIBLE! I gotta eat breakfast.

On days that I eat two meals I eat breakfast and lunch 5 hours later. That's easy for my body to do because I don't mind missing dinner.

Edited by DR01D, 22 June 2013 - 07:39 PM.

[Teakles]

I heard that we should have 5 meals - but small portions!

[ta5]

This makes me feel better about skipping breakfast:
http://www.schwarzen...tep-1-breakfast

Researchers studied two groups: one that ate most of their calories at the start of the day (simulating the nothing-after-7 PM rule), while the other group skipped breakfast and ate most of their meals in the last half of the day. What happened? Well, the first group, the one that ate most of their calories early on (including a huge carby breakfast) lost more weight than the second group[65].

Before you stop reading and tell me I’ve been debunked, let me tell you what else happened. The researchers examined the subjects’ body composition before and after the study, and that’s where we see reality. Yes, the feast-in-the-morning group lost more weight, but they lost a lot more muscle and a lot less fat. The second group—which, again, ate most of their calories at night—lost almost exclusively fat while preserving muscle[65-69]. Interesting, right?

What about the cognitive aspects of skipping carbs at breakfast? Will it really cloud your thinking and slow you down mentally? All the evidence supporting this, at least what I’ve seen, is anecdotal at best. Have experiments proven that a carby breakfast or any breakfast at all improves cognitive abilities? Yes, if the subjects are malnourished[70-73].

Researchers withheld breakfast from one group of kids, letting them eat their first meal at lunch, while a second group of kids at a so-called “balanced” breakfast. The result? When kids skip breakfast, they pay attention, behave, and perform better throughout the entire day[72-83]. We may not want to believe this, but it’s exactly what I’m talking about with regard to observation and proof. In the case of these kids, there must be some other factor relating breakfast to academic performance, because both vary in the same way with socioeconomic status[84], i.e. well-to-do parents have and spend time helping their children with academics, and they almost always serve breakfast.

[blood]

Yes, the feast-in-the-morning group lost more weight, but they lost a lot more muscle and a lot less fat. The second group—which, again, ate most of their calories at night—lost almost exclusively fat while preserving muscle[65-69]. Interesting, right?

Really interesting. I've always skipped breakfast too, and eat most of my calories in the PM. Always wondered if it was healthy/ unhealthy.

Full text for the study that was referenced in your link:

http://jn.nutrition....t/127/1/75.full

J Nutr. 1997 Jan;127(1):75-82.

Weight loss is greater with consumption of large morning meals and fat-free mass is preserved with large evening meals in women on a controlled weight reduction regimen.

Keim NL, Van Loan MD, Horn WF, Barbieri TF, Mayclin PL.

Source
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Western Human Nutrition Research Center, Presidio of San Francisco, CA 94129, USA.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether meal ingestion pattern [large morning meals (AM) vs. large evening meals (PM)] affects changes in body weight, body composition or energy utilization during weight loss. Ten women completed a metabolic ward study of 3-wk weight stabilization followed by 12 wk of weight loss with a moderately energy restricted diet [mean energy intake +/- SD = 107 +/- 6 kJ/(kg.d)] and regular exercise. The weight loss phase was divided into two 6-wk periods. During period 1, 70% of daily energy intake was taken as two meals in the AM (n = 4) or in the PM (n = 6). Subjects crossed over to the alternate meal time in period 2. Both weight loss and fat-free mass loss were greater with the AM than the PM meal pattern: 3.90 +/- 0.19 vs. 3.27 +/- 0.26 kg/6 wk, P < 0.05, and 1.28 +/- 0.14 vs. 0.25 +/- 0.16 kg/6 wk, P < 0.001, respectively. Change in fat mass and loss of body energy were affected by order of meal pattern ingestion. The PM pattern resulted in greater loss of fat mass in period 1 (P < 0.01) but not in period 2. Likewise, resting mid-afternoon fat oxidation rate was higher with the PM pattern in period 1 (P < 0.05) but not in period 2, corresponding with the fat mass changes. To conclude, ingestion of larger AM meals resulted in slightly greater weight loss, but ingestion of larger PM meals resulted in better maintenance of fat-free mass. Thus, incorporation of larger PM meals in a weight loss regimen may be important in minimizing the loss of fat-free mass.

[rberezews]

I do eat 3 times a day plus snack in the afternoon. A light snack for crakers and 1 fruit. And I am contented with it.

[ta5]

Front Public Health. 2014 Jun 3;2:59.

Breakfast: to skip or not to skip?

Zilberter T1, Zilberter EY2.

PMID: 24918099

 

Given body of evidence reviewed in this opinion article, it is reasonable to suppose that skipping BF could be as metabolically beneficial as excluding late eating, as well as stress the importance of the overnight fast. Perhaps it does not matter which of the daily meals – the first or the last – is omitted as long as at least once in a while, an inter-meal interval is long enough to allow the state of ketosis to initiate lipolysis and lower calorie intake, thus decreasing the risk of obesity and its comorbidities.

 

 

[PWAIN]

I'm doing the 5:2 diet. I fast properly on the fast days tho. I understand that research is backing up the idea that this is a healthier way to eat. I think this is probably because fasting generally tends to be good for health. If this is true, then the best thing would be to reduce your number of meals and keep them as close together as possible.

 

I would suggest 2 meals, lunch and dinner, maybe 1pm and 6pm. This will allow you to still socialise and skipping breakfast will probably be easier than skipping any other meal and also give you a long time without eating. I do something like this along with 5:2, skip breakfast, eat lunch at 12 and dinner at around 7. I used to do 1 meal a day in the evenings but it gets a bit hard to maintain and there is a tendency to eat too much at that one meal.

[kurdishfella]

your body absorbs smaller meals better spaced out throughout the day because it results in a higher metabolism ie your body never stops burning food if timed correctly

[ta5]

More evidence that breakfast may not be all it's cracked up to be:

 

BMJ. 2019 Jan 30;364:l42.

Effect of breakfast on weight and energy intake: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Katherine Sievert, Sultana Monira Hussain, Matthew J Page  et al.

Objective: To examine the effect of regular breakfast consumption on weight change and energy intake in people living in high income countries.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources: PubMed, Ovid Medline, and CINAHL were searched for randomised controlled trials published between January 1990 and January 2018 investigating the effect of breakfast on weight or energy intake. ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal were also searched in October 2018 to identify any registered yet unpublished or ongoing trials.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Randomised controlled trials from high income countries in adults comparing breakfast consumption with no breakfast consumption that included a measure of body weight or energy intake. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Random effects meta-analyses of the effect of breakfast consumption on weight and daily energy intake were performed.

Results: Of 13 included trials, seven examined the effect of eating breakfast on weight change, and 10 examined the effect on energy intake. Meta-analysis of the results found a small difference in weight favouring participants who skipped breakfast (mean difference 0.44 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.82), but there was some inconsistency across trial results (I2=43%). Participants assigned to breakfast had a higher total daily energy intake than those assigned to skip breakfast (mean difference 259.79 kcal/day, 78.87 to 440.71; 1 kcal=4.18 kJ), despite substantial inconsistency across trial results (I2=80%). All of the included trials were at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain and had only short term follow-ups (mean period seven weeks for weight, two weeks for energy intake). As the quality of the included studies was mostly low, the findings should be interpreted with caution.

Conclusion: This study suggests that the addition of breakfast might not be a good strategy for weight loss, regardless of established breakfast habit. Caution is needed when recommending breakfast for weight loss in adults, as it could have the opposite effect. Further randomised controlled trials of high quality are needed to examine the role of breakfast eating in the approach to weight management.

PMID: 30700403

[MFRITTMAN]

Eating one meal per day helped me lose weight from 280 lbs. to under 200.  I did it on a keto diet and found it very easy to maintain.

[kurdishfella]

Eating one meal per day helped me lose weight from 280 lbs. to under 200.  I did it on a keto diet and found it very easy to maintain.

So it had nothing to do with eating less or including healthier foods? If you eat one meal a day at a specific time and the same amount then you will still weight the same if not more. How long did it take? It would have been better if you ate smaller meals throughout the day to keep your metabolism going and slowly decreasing the amount of food you eat to what you feel is comfortable, healthier and faster weight loss. A lot of people also start taking vitamins which help with weight loss and attribute it to the wrong thing in this case IF. The human body is not meant to consume large amounts of food in one sitting which can use gut issues and harder on those with existing ones long term. And you would also be forced to mix food with each other that can disrupt its absorption etc like fruits with meat should not be eaten together. 

Edited by kurdishfella, 10 May 2021 - 06:03 AM.

[MFRITTMAN]

So it had nothing to do with eating less or including healthier foods? If you eat one meal a day at a specific time and the same amount then you will still weight the same if not more. How long did it take? It would have been better if you ate smaller meals throughout the day to keep your metabolism going and slowly decreasing the amount of food you eat to what you feel is comfortable, healthier and faster weight loss. A lot of people also start taking vitamins which help with weight loss and attribute it to the wrong thing in this case IF. The human body is not meant to consume large amounts of food in one sitting which can use gut issues and harder on those with existing ones long term. And you would also be forced to mix food with each other that can disrupt its absorption etc like fruits with meat should not be eaten together. 

What proof do you have that the human body is not meant meant to eat large amounts of food in a single sitting?  What proof do you have that it is better to eat many smaller meals throughout the day?  I'm not familiar with any studies comparing many small meals to one meal per day.

 

My diet had low protein and low carbs.  At the time I was not a strict a strict vegan, though few calories came from meat.  My calories were mostly from healthy oil, avocados, nuts, olives, and seeds.  I had a whole lot of kale, parsley, lettuce, cilantro, celery and the like.  A typical meal would include a large salad and a soup containing large amounts of coconut oil, palm oil, or olive oil.  Sometimes the single bowl of soup would contain 16 ounces of fat, so probably a lot of calories.  Even without a reduction in calories, I lost the weight due to the nature of having one meal per day.  This surprised me like crazy.  It convinced me that weight loss isn't all about calories.  

 

Even though I had my gall bladder previously removed, my body adjusted.  I remained full and satisfied the entire day and had a lot of energy--enough to maintain a very active exercise routine.  It took me about six months to lose about 90% of the weight.  Despite the low protein, I did not experience much muscle loss.  In the end, I had a 33 waist at 190 lbs, 5'11", and over 50 years old.  The low waist to height ratio and relatively high BMI indicate I retained muscle mass well.

 

The advantage of eating a lot of fat is that it activates insulin very little even after a huge meal.  Another advantage is autophagy.  During the 22 hours or so between meals, the body consumes senescent cells.

 

I'm not sure if everyone who eats a similar diet would have similar results to me.  It worked very well for me at the time.  The disadvantage to keto diets is that I was not able to do long fasts.  After a few days, bile production is halted and if a lot of fat is consumed after ending a fast, I get diarrhea.  I do not believe keto is the only way.  I am currently eating a low-fat vegan diet and seem to be doing well.  I do fast about one week per month.  I'm not even sure if there is one right way to eat other than healthy foods are better than processed foods, bad oils, sugar.  Of course, some kind of fasting, whether intermittent or many days at a time, is critical to good health because it is the best way to get rid of senescent cells.

Edited by MFRITTMAN, 10 May 2021 - 03:19 PM.