Update: 3 squares vs. small, frequent meals

People trying to lose weight will often hear two conflicting pieces of advice: "don't snack between meals" and "eat frequent snacks to keep from getting too hungry." I have addressed this issue before, and my conclusion was that it probably didn't matter too much which approach is taken, but that it is best to eat when you are hungry rather than when the clock says it's time to eat.

Today, I came across the results of a study which adds to the evidence supporting the traditional, 3-meals-per-day plan. This study found that men who were advised to consume their calorie-restricted diet in the form of 3 larger meals (containing 750 calories) did not feel as hungry as men who ate the same diet in 6 small meals (375 calories each).

One study is certainly not going to "settle" this debate for good, but it is something to think about. And it makes sense to me. Snacks may help prevent excessive hunger between meal, but meals should be large enough to elicit a sense of fullness to begin with. Eating small meals that never satisfy is probably a recipe for diet failure. With this approach, you may not ever become starving, but who wants to experience a constant feeling of even mild deprivation?

In light of these findings, I'd like to clarify my stance on the subject. Eat meals that lead to a feeling of comfortable fullness, and try to space your meals at regular intervals to avoid becoming too hungry. Four to five hours between meals is reasonable. If for some reason you have to eat a meal late or skip a meal, be prepared with healthy snacks to take the edge off. The goal should be to start eating when you are pretty hungry, but not ready to eat your own arm; and to stop eating when you are full, but not so full that you feel uncomfortable, weighed down, or sleepy.