[nelie]

I think the findings here are kind of surprising and indicate that although meal frequency isn't link with weight loss, it is correlated with a decrease in fat mass and body fat %.

As always, just a thought point to ponder and still whatever works best for you, is probably the right answer. I've moved to closer to 3 meals/day myself and not sure if I'll change that at the moment.

http://nutritionreviews.oxfordjourna...ontent/73/2/69

[IanG]

2 meals a day works great for me. 2 LARGE meals.

Bodybuilders eat more frequently which makes me question any finding that increased frequency decreases fat mass. If the six meals a day people are also pumping iron, there might be no surprise in that finding. But that's just the skeptic in me.

[Moving Forward]

The abstract notes that at first glance the findings are significant, but they urge "circumspection" because that was mainly due to large findings from one study. As far as I'm concerned, that's not conclusive. I'll stick with my three meals a day for now.

[nelie]

The meta analysis is just looking at all the studies currently available and seeing if there is anything we can glean from them. I haven't looked in depth at the individual studies but they wouldn't be indicating that if you eat fewer than 5 meals/day that you won't burn fat at all in a calorie deficit. It seems that there was more fat burned while eating more meals based on the studies and based on the populations (sedentary, moderate/high carb diets). So obviously even if you ate fewer meals and were in a calorie deficit, you'd still lose fat but burns more fat? The studies may indicate that it is more frequent meals result in a greater amount of fat loss than less frequent meals.

As I said, it is whatever works best for you. I used to do 5-6 meals but I don't follow that anymore for my own reasons. Weight loss (aka fat loss) isn't always black and white with a lot of gray areas