3 meals vs. mini-meals
 

Hi, :p

I know many of you out there eat small mini-meals throughout the day instead of having 3 meals. I used to do the same, having 6-7 frequent mini-meals consisting of 200-300 calories each. Lately, I’ve switched over to having just 3 meals a day. I noticed that I had less craving doing this. But now, my lunch is at least 500 calories instead of two smaller portions. (And I finish all of my lunch even though I'm so full :D )

Which is better you think? Eating a lot at once, or having it divided? If I consume huge amountt of calories at one sitting, does the body store the unused calories away as fat and just ‘forget about them’ and wait for the next meal? Whereas in mini-meals, you pretty much burn off what you eat? How does this all work?

I’ve heard differing stories on which is better, so I’d like to hear what you guys think. A friend of mine doing CAD said that more meals = more insulin surges. But I thought eating smaller meals kept your metabolism boosted. Although, having 3 meals has helped keep my thoughts away from food.

Confused, Rose.

Eating small meals more frequently can help keep your blood sugar more stable, so if you're having problems with that, you might want to go back to mini-meals.

I personally eat three squares a day with a very small snack mid-morning and usually a snack after dinner at night. Whatever works for you is what's best.

After trying CAD, I realized that I have MUCH better losses and fewer cravings on 2 or three meals a day, rather than grazing.

In teh CAD book, it said that frequent eating, even of low-carb foods can set you up for cravings later in the day. I found that to be true for me.

I'm sure it's a very individual thing though, we all have to do what works for us.

I personally stick to the 3 meals a day thing.

I've read over and over the eating habits of slim countries, like France and some other European countries, and they certainly don't snack like Americans do. Apparently you don't see people walking down the street stuffing their faces with donuts or doritos or whatever in most of Europe. (I especially try to eat like the French, who are notoriously thin and don't snack in between meals as part of their culture.)

Also, I think that grazing just sets us up to expect food all day. Our ancestors probably didn't have what we consider snacks; I suspect they ate when they got hungry, every 5-6 hours or so. I know that when I'm on Atkins, I do not want to snack at all!

And I get enough fat and protein at every meal that I'm not processing it quickly and I don't feel like I need to eat something for energy every few hours. In induction, I can go as long as 10 hours without feeling hungry. As a restaurant manager, I am constantly on the go for a full 8 hours a day so my metabolism doesn't fall like it did when I had a desk job.

Count me on the three-meals side of the question. I've tried mini-meals before, but they leave me feeling constantly semi-hungry and unsatisfied. Also, I prefer to have complete hot meals, with a meat and one or two hot veggies, and it's a lot harder to do that on mini-meals. I try really hard to avoid snacking in between meals, because I don't tend to actually eat less at the next meal as a result, so it's just extra calories. I'll occasionally have a snack to avoid going to the gym on an empty stomach, or if I'm up much more than six hours after dinner, but other than that I don't eat outside of mealtimes. My DH is a big grazer, and I think that's partly why I've actually lost faster than him -- he eats more nuts and snacky things than he realizes, then goes and has regular meals with me.

OTOH, note that I have a, shall we say, healthy appetite, and usually average 1800-2100 calories a day (and have done so all along while losing weight). A 500-calorie meal leaves me pleasantly satisfied instead of too full, so as you can imagine, 200-calorie meals don't get me very far. Maybe they work better for people with smaller apptetites than mine, who can't eat very much at a single sitting, but they're not my thing at all.

Ditto on the 3 meals. I usually add in one snack also. I'm just not hungry enough to eat more than that. When I was on Weight Watchers, well.. that was a different story. I was so hungry all the time that I ate snacks every 2 hours and no real meals at all. :rolleyes: If I didnt do that I would get lightheaded and feel like my stomach was trying to digest itself.

I do the minimeals. I found at 3 meals a day I just couldn't get enough claories in because I would get full fast. Having smaller meals through out the day (I usually have 3 main ones and snacks coming to 4-6 meals) I get my calories in. I also have a constant supply of energy instead of crashes.

If I go too long between meals I have a sever crash that involves nausia, vomiting, weakness, and so on which makes getting food hard. This has gotten much better on LC with my blood sugars under control, but I still have to be careful.

I am also a firm beliver that minimeals or at least snacking helps raise your emtabolism. It seems putting a large amount of food on your stomach at once would cause digestive problems. Also your body would take what it needs and store the rest for later. Better to give it a constant small dose of what it needs so it doesn't feel the need to store and never comes up short :)

I am also a busy college student with 2 kids though. I know realisticaly it can be hard to have time to eat. Snacks that are easy to grab, or easy to put in pocket help this. It also saves time for other things that need to be done.

I am with LadyBelle and the minimeals
I had trouble getting the calories in and I get full fast.

The mini meals also help keep my metabolism up and my bloodsugar stable.

It was really difficult at first for me to get used to eating so many times a day but now I am used to it. I also now eat much smaller portion sizes which helps shrink my tummy.

I also never eat past 8:30

I have 2 small meals at breakfast and lunch, then a fairly good dinner. I often have a snack at night, but I try to make it diet jello if I am trying to lose, nuts if I am maintaining.

brobin

I was eating three meals a day but mid afternoon got hungry again, so at lunch time I eat a salad and a lil later (bunfree) cheese burger.. Seems to keep cravings away.

I prefer 3 meals and a snack. I never feel satisfied with grazing all day. I realised lately that my lunch was having fewer calories and this resulted in me overeating when i got back from work. I've definitely improved as i haven't had dinner yet and normally i would have had my dinner by 6pm.

I do a combo. I have trouble eating in the mornings, I just usually have no appetite for hours. I can usually make myself eat a mini-meal though, have another a few hours later, and after that my appetite kicks in and I have a decent lunch and dinner. So this way I don't fast too long, and keep my calories in a good range too.

Yes, I know exactly what you mean about not thinking about food. 200-300 calories will only last me about an hour or two, so if I'm eating every three hours, that means I'm hungry on average for three hours out of six. If I eat a good lunch at noon, I don't start to get hungry until close to dinnertime, so I only spend one hour out of six thinking about food instead. Sometimes we all want to eat for eating's sake, and the more frequently we eat, the more opportunities we give ourselves to go overboard -- it's a lot harder to stop yourself from eating too much than it is just not to eat at all. Couple that with being quasi-hungry all the time for a couple days, and you've got a recipe for a pigout.

I would like to hear more about the science behind mini-meals vs. three-squares, though, especially relating to insulin. I don't personally have the kind of trouble with volatile blood sugar levels between meals that LadyBelle describes below. I get *hungry* if I haven't eaten a solid meal in a while, but it takes a long time (8+ hours) to get to the headache stage, much less the nausea stage. I also don't get the typical post-meal sleepiness associated with a blood sugar spike. I do tend to be headachy, weak, and shaky on mini-meals, though -- I just don't ever feel like I've physically gotten enough to eat, much less emotionally. The logic of mini-meals makes a lot of sense to me, but it doesn't seem to be the way my body works best.

4 complete meals
 

For me 4 complete meals the best. With 3 I can not get enough calories. (With a long-distance running training I need around 2000/day.)
I always eat at our dining table, never in front of tv, in bed, in the street, in car etc.
Something else: I prefer to keep the same schedule every day: eating at 7, 11, 3, 7 - never after 7.

(I was raised in a country where people did not snack, did not eat in movie theaters, did not have fast food restaurant etc.)

I agree, there is no general rule, everyone needs to find his/her own way in this.