Nutrition

3-5 small meals a day vs 2 larger meals a day. What’s better for you and why?

Two Meals or Five? Find Out What's Best for You

Hey Ryan. So this is a great question. One thing that I would always ask if someone wants to make the decision between three, to five meals and two meals. A day is, how are you feeling later on in the day? You know, if you're having if you're skipping breakfast, for example, are you feeling like you really want to binge at night that may indicate that you're not getting enough food with those two two meals a day and that you need something like breakfast in the beginning of the day three to five meals a day certainly. Lee ensures that you have the volume of food needed to get all the nutrients that you require. However, you can do that in two meals a day as well. You just need to make sure that all of your meals are quality that they're built around protein and vegetables, and that you're not eating. A lot of ultra-processed food, people are all different. So some people do really well with two meals a day and some don't It's just depending on how those two meals make you feel versus the three to five meals, both are very viable options, but it also depends on your goals that you trying to lose weight. Are you trying to gain muscle? So it that that's a factor as well. I would say that if you're wanting to lose weight 2 meals a day, will probably help you cut calories as intermittent fasting does, but it's not Superior to three to five meals a day if you're able Well, to cut calories a little bit in those meals as well. Some people just find it easier to fast and have two meals a day. That being said, if you find yourself overeating at those two meals a day, then you may want to spread them out to three to five meals a day or three meals and two snacks.

It's important to consider how you feel after two meals a day versus three to five meals a day. All things considered, both are viable options, but it also depends on your goals (weight loss/muscle gain). If you find yourself overeating with two meals a day, then it may be worth considering spreading out your food intake to three to five meals a day or three meals and two snacks.

https://assets.anyquestion.com/raw/upload/dwk7s5lowhiz5jjj58lt.vtt

When deciding between three to five small meals a day or two larger meals a day, it's important to consider how you feel later in the day. If skipping breakfast leads to a strong desire to binge at night, it may indicate that two meals a day are not providing enough food and that incorporating breakfast could be beneficial.

Having three to five meals a day ensures that you consume enough food volume to meet your nutrient requirements. However, it is also possible to achieve this with two quality meals that are centered around protein and vegetables, while avoiding excessive consumption of processed foods.

Individual preferences and goals play a role as well. Some people thrive on two meals a day, while others may not. It depends on how these meals make you feel compared to the three to five meal approach. Both options are viable, but it's important to consider your specific goals. If weight loss is a goal, two meals a day may help reduce calorie intake through intermittent fasting. However, it's not inherently superior to three to five meals a day if you can still achieve a calorie deficit with the latter approach.

Ultimately, it's about finding what works best for you. If you find yourself overeating during two meals a day, spreading them out to three to five meals or incorporating snacks may be helpful. Listen to your body and adjust accordingly.

What is the most important study design limitation in the science of diet and health outcomes?

Unraveling the Truth: Limitations in Studying Diet & Health Outcomes

Hi there. So I think the most important limitation and the limitation that exists in pretty much every nutrition research study is that it's unethical and basically impossible to keep people in a lab for years on end and feed them a controlled diet. That's why it's hard to determine exact outcomes because we're really looking at epidemiological studies that look at a population as a whole. And what We get is more of an educated guess in terms of how certain foods and nutrients affect us. I think the best and arguably, the most controversial example of this is saturated fat. Do we think that saturated fat negatively affects our health yes? Has anyone ever teased out exactly what saturated fat does to us? And if it's the saturated fat in particular that, Does it know? This is a problem because it then leaves research open to interpretation. So you get people saying, well, saturated fat has never been proven to be bad for us. When, in fact, there's mountains of research that doesn't prove causation but proves correlation or shows correlation, but because we can't keep people in a lab and gives them. Give them a controlled diet. For years on end, we may never know the truth.

Nutrition research is limited by the fact that it is impossible to keep people in a lab for years and feed them a controlled diet, which leaves outcomes open to interpretation. This is particularly true with the example of saturated fat, where correlation has been observed but causation has yet to be proven.

https://assets.anyquestion.com/raw/upload/vvnbmotiipjccviskebc.vtt

The most important limitation in the science of diet and health outcomes is the ethical and practical challenge of conducting long-term studies where individuals are kept in a lab and fed a controlled diet. This makes it difficult to determine precise outcomes and leads to reliance on epidemiological studies that examine populations as a whole. As a result, our understanding of how specific foods and nutrients impact us is more of an educated guess rather than definitive evidence.

One controversial example of this limitation is saturated fat. While it is widely believed to have negative effects on health, it is challenging to determine the exact impact and whether it is solely due to saturated fat or other factors. This leaves room for interpretation in research findings. Some argue that saturated fat has never been proven to be harmful, despite the existence of extensive research showing correlation, though not causation.

Because it is impractical to keep individuals in a lab for extended periods and provide them with controlled diets, we may never have a definitive answer to certain questions in the science of diet and health outcomes.

Is it true that some sugar before bed is helpful for sleep?

Sugar before bed: Myth or sleep miracle?

So the question is, is sugar before bed helpful for sleep? And as a dietitian of 23 years, I have never heard of this in my life. I mean, I guess if you have low blood sugar, it would be difficult to sleep, and therefore sugar would correct that. But in all other cases, I feel like this is a myth that being said, there's nothing to prevent you from having a bedtime snack, if that's what you enjoy doing. Just make sure that it's rich in proteins, not sugar and that it's small. If there is research that suggests that sugar before, bed helps with sleep, please send it to me because I would love to see it.

Eating a small snack with proteins before bed might help you sleep, but there is no evidence that eating sugar specifically helps.

https://assets.anyquestion.com/raw/upload/zq3ff502ev1lgnro2y08.vtt

The idea that sugar before bed is helpful for sleep is not something I have come across in my 23 years as a dietitian. While it's possible that low blood sugar could interfere with sleep and consuming sugar may address that issue, I believe this is largely a myth. However, if you enjoy having a bedtime snack, there's no harm in doing so. Just ensure that it is protein-rich rather than sugar-heavy and keep the portion size small. If there is any research suggesting that sugar before bed aids sleep, I would be interested in seeing it.

What nutritional fads that are still commonly practiced have been debunked by peer reviewed research?

Fad Diets Debunked by Peer Review - Basic Physiology Holds True

The alkaline diet, I mean peer review research. How about just basic physiology food? Combining Both of these things. Still really common, still total BS.

Combining the alkaline diet and basic physiology food is still considered to be totally baseless and not supported by any peer-reviewed research.

https://assets.anyquestion.com/raw/upload/iggj2tn2quj8nuojsqsi.vtt

The alkaline diet is one nutritional fad that has been debunked by peer-reviewed research. Despite its continued popularity, scientific studies and basic physiological understanding of food have shown that this diet is not supported by evidence and is considered to be total nonsense.

Neither AnyQuestion nor its Experts provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment or otherwise provide professional healthcare services.

Physician disclaimer

Abby Langer, RD answers your Nutrition questions. See all the advice Abby Langer, RD has and get answers to your own Nutrition questions.

Follow me on AnyQuestion

Registered Dietitian since 1999, Abby Langer has a passion for all aspects of nutrition. She has won awards for her teaching and has served on her regulatory college’s council. Abby focuses on body respect and intuitive-style eating, and works with brands aligned with her nutrition philosophy. She has extensive experience in media and a dedicated, engaged following. When not working, Abby loves running, discovering new foods, and spending time with her family.