I read this in an e-mail from Men's Health this morning;

"We're so used to hearing people talk about eating less food that it's become weight-loss doctrine. But as you remember from the physiology of metabolism, you have to eat more often to change your body composition. The new philosophy I want you to keep in mind is "energy balance."

Researchers at Georgia State University developed a technique to measure hourly energy balance -- that is, how many calories you're burning versus how many calories you're taking in. The researchers found that if you keep your hourly surplus or deficit within 300 to 500 calories at all times, you will best be able to change your body composition by losing fat and adding lean muscle mass. Those subjects with the largest energy imbalances (those who were over 500 calories in either ingestion or expenditure) were the fattest, while those with the most balanced energy levels were the leanest.

So if you eat only your three squares a day, you're creating terrific imbalances in your energy levels. Between meals, you're burning many more calories than you're taking in. At mealtimes, you're taking in many more than you're burning. Research shows that this kind of eating plan is great -- if your dream is to be the next John Candy. But if you want to look slimmer, feel fitter, and -- not coincidentally -- live longer, then you need to eat more often. In the same study, subjects who added three snacks a day to three regular meals balanced out their energy better, lost fat, and increased lean body mass (as well as increased their power and endurance).

In a similar study, researchers in Japan found that boxers who ate the same amount of calories a day from either two or six meals both lost an average of 11 pounds in 2 weeks. But the guys who ate six meals a day lost 3 pounds more fat and 3 pounds less muscle than the ones who ate only two meals.

There's science to support the fact that more meals work, but the plain-speak reason it works is because it does something that many diets don't do: It keeps you full and satiated, which will reduce the likelihood of a diet-destroying binge."

CAn you provide the actual STUDY with the information rather than just quotes?

Because every study I've read says that the thermogenic effect of eating more often is simply not big enough to make a difference in weight loss.

I thought I was pretty clear. This was information that I just read (literally five minutes ago) and I thought might be interesting to people here on the forum. If if it's something you'd like to look into further I'm sure you could find the actual studies.

That's not actual science - that's ... well BS.

Seriously - any time you eat you take in more calories than you burn. And any time you're not eating, you burn more calories than you're intaking. Well, yeah. That's life. Based on that comment, you won't lose weight unless you're eating 24/7. It's just nonsense science. Sci-babble.

If there's an actual study that shows eating 6x a day is beneficial to weight loss, then I'd like to see it.

Not that they are right or wrong, but you clearly missed their point

Here ya go:

Another Study "Questioning the Logic" of the 6 Meal Per Day Diet Plan | Fitness Black Book

The above references these two articles:

Meal frequency and energy balance. [Br J Nutr. 1997] - PubMed Result

Meal Frequency and Energy Balance | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

I'm surprised Mens Health is putting that information out there seeing as how they have Alan Aragon on staff, which is one of my fav authors/researchers.

Anyhow, I don't buy it.

I've been doing this long enough to know that once calories and nutrients are accounted for, it doesn't really matter how frequently you deliver them. Especially when you're comparing something like 3 vs. 6 feedings.

Yeah, I know... terrible appeal to authority but this argument pops up ever other week and no matter how you approach it (support the argument with science or support it with anecdote) we're still left with many people buying into the idea of more meals = better.

For some, they're right.

For others, they're not.

And in neither case does it have to do with increased metabolic rate. Does that mean it has to do with favorable partitioning in the context of fat mass vs. lean mass? I don't think so.

Apparently I am.

Huh? You are what? Sorry... I'm slow today.

Sorry, Steve ... was responding to the post above yours and apparently not well, anyway.

He said:
Not that they are right or wrong, but you clearly missed their point

My response should have been:
Clearly I have.

Ahhhh... I follow now.

Kara

I always thought what you posted earlier was correct, that it doesn't matter how many meals you eat, just the total as the body uses the fuel when needed, so it doesn't matter when it was eaten.

The only piece of advice I was given in respect to 5/6 smaller meals compared to 3 was that less food in the stomach makes it easier for the stomach digest, but as long term weight loss meal frequency makes no difference.

Digestion can be an individual factor. For some larger feedings can upset the stomach/digestive system. For others, not so much. Moral of the story... trial and error until you find what works for you.