Guess what I just read-

[redsquirrel]

So I just got back from the prego doctor. While I was waiting, I was reading a Parents magazine. As I'm flipping through it, I see a little blurb box that says:

"The Dietitians Association of Australia recently conducted a study between people who eat 5-6 small meals per day, and people who eat 3. They found the is no difference in the amount of inches lost, body fat %, or blood sugar levels. It all depends on the amount of calories"

Well, first of all- WTF!!?!?!!?? Second of all- of course it's all based on the amount of calories you take in, but how can this seriously be correct? How can they say that smaller spikes in insulin levels DOESN't help with weight loss? I know most dieticians can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground, but I still find it pretty amusing that all these other publicaitons preach several small meals, and they are sticking to the basic 3.

[Bouncer]

sure it has to do with calories. calories in vs calories out. you could eat 1 meal a day and as long as you are burning more cals then you are taking in you will loose weight.

what the study doesn't take into account is long term metabolism. the less meals you eat for longer the slower your metabolism becomes. the few meals you eat the slower your metabolism will become and thus the amount of calories your body burns will become lower over time.

[Scrumhalf]

I have been hearing more and more of this lately, that eating 3 *regular* meals a day is as effective as 6 small meals (as long as, of course, the # of calories in the 3 regular meals is the same as the 6 small meals). I haven't had a chance to do a rigorous evaluation of these claims though.

One thing is for sure - I find it difficult to overeat when I do more frequent and smaller meals. The stomach is pretty elastic and shrinks over time when just given small meals.