I have been asked this question of meal frequency many times before. And up until a bit over a year I used to give an entirely different answer than the one I give today.
It’s interesting how for so many things in life we tend to make a full circle… But, we wouldn’t usually know that we are going to end up in the same place (reaching the same conclusion, ending up at the same set of best practices, etc.) and it usually takes many years for this process. I’m old enough for this to have happened to me many times already. And, I’ve reached a point where I know not to tell people they are wrong any more… because it might ultimately turn out that they have been right all along.
So, as it happens, I made the same full circle with the six-meals-a-day-to-keep-your-metabolism-high deal. Now I know better.
I made a post on another website where this question was asked. Read it here.
2 Responses
I believe it. I have had relatively low body fat percentages from doing both kinds of setups, and I have to say that I prefer less meals. The hassle of 5-6 meals a day is not worth it to me. I think it’s more about the quality of the foods we eat then the frequency of the meals. Glad to see that there are more people with a similar mindset out there.
Jake, there are many reasons for doing less meals a day (not doing 6+ meals a day). One of them is it’s not practical – especially with the busy lifestyles we live today. But, my main thing is I have started looking back in history and often ask myself questions… in this case, “For centuries were we able to eat 6 times a day or it was more like 1-3 times a day?” And, if you think about it it’s mostly during the last couple of centuries when we started eating more and more often. Reasons, industrial revolution, fast/processed food revolution, food more accessible throughout the day. However, I think that couple of hundred of years (even less) isn’t enough for us humans to evolutionary adapt to eating so mach/so frequently and moving so little.
But, yes, practicality is a big factor.