inc.com
Intermittent Fasting, ‘Grazing,’ or OMAD? Science Says Meal Frequency Has No Impact on Appetite or Overall Health
Jeff Haden
4–5 minutes

A friend swears by intermittent fasting. His meal “window” opens at noon and closes at 6 p.m. He’s convinced it helps him burn more fat and keep his weight down.

Another friend eats a number of small meals throughout the day. She’s convinced it helps her keep her weight down by boosting her metabolism and controlling her hunger. (“I’m less likely to overeat when I know another meal is just around the corner,” she says.)

Oddly enough, both are right.

And also wrong.

Inc Logo

Refreshed leadership advice from CEO Stephanie Mehta

According to a study published in Journal of Nutrition, meal frequency has no impact on appetite. Participants were placed in two groups: both consumed the same number of calories and macronutrients, but one group got it in three meals, the other spread across six. Then the groups swapped eating patterns.

With no difference in results.

Meal frequency also had no impact on grehlin, the hunger hormone that increases appetite and food intake, or on leptin, the hormone that signals fullness and suppresses appetite. (In broader health terms, meal frequency also had no impact on inflammation: chronic inflammation can contribute to various health problems including heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers.)

The friend who intermittently fasts? It isn’t necessarily good for him, or bad. The friend who eats six small meals a day? It isn’t necessarily good for her, or bad. Where weight loss or weight maintenance is concerned, what matters is how much you eat. Where overall health is concerned, what matters is what you eat.

Not when you eat, or how frequently.

Granted, research shows taking in most of your calories earlier in the day is at least partly linked to lower odds of being overweight or obese. Research also shows eating close to bedtime can interfere with sleep and increase the risk of weight gain and metabolic issues.

But those factors are still less important than whether a particular eating regimen (or diet plan) works for you — and is a regimen and plan you can stick with. Take me: I’ve eaten five or six “meals” (some are more like a snack than a meal) for decades. I tend to mostly eat the same things: fish, chicken, leafy vegetables, fruits… I’m far from perfect, but I rarely stray too far outside of a Mediterranean-style diet. I don’t have to force myself to do those things. I just do.

It works for me.

That may not work for you. You may prefer to restrict your eating to a six- or eight-hour window. (My daughter-in-law basically eats one meal a day.) If that works for you — and is something you’re able to do, without much effort — then that’s the best plan for you.

Ultimately, the best diet routine – the best exercise routine, the best any routine – isn’t necessarily the one that is scientifically optimal. The best routine is the one you’ll stick with, regularly and consistently.

Maybe eating five or six small meals throughout the day would be better for you, but if you can’t stick with it, “best” is irrelevant. Maybe powerlifting is the scientifically optimal exercise regimen — it’s not, but let’s just pretend — but if you hate pushing heavy weights and cant’ stick with it, then “scientifically optimal” is irrelevant.

The “best” anything is the one you can do, regularly and consistently. In math terms, a 90 percent completion rate of an 80 percent effective routine is a lot better than a 10 percent (or 0 percent) completion rate of a 100 percent effective routine.

The key is to determine what positive choices — what positive routines, practices, regimens, etc. — you prefer, and can stick with, and do those things.

Because doing a lot of something “good” is much better than doing little or nothing of something “excellent.”