Is the "multiple small days a day good for metabolism" just a myth"

I have been told that and heard it from many different places. I know the internet has two sides to evething so I was reading last night about how it's not true and how three bigger meals will equal smaller ones in the end. So what is everyones opinion?

The metabolic effects are minimal, and you should do what helps you stay satisfied longer - for some, it's easier to eat many small meals, but others find that unless they have a larger meal, they continue to feel unsatisfied. I prefer at least 2 larger meals, with smaller meals and snacks to tide me over.

I think it's more realistic to just eat every 3 hours. I eat 3 meals a day (around 400 cals each) + 2-3 snacks in between meals (200 cals each) and that works for me.

Oooh, I want "multiple small days a day" too!  I might actually get caught up on my housework if I had more days per day.

Sorry to be snarky, I couldn't resist.  I am always amazed at how we actually understand that you meant "meals" not days in your title.

I am one of those people who lose weight successfully on 3 meals/maybe 1 snack a day.  I am too busy working/living to eat 5 or 6 meals a day.  If I make good, wholesome choices at breakfast, it holds me until lunch.  Same for lunch, then dinner.  The meal that is least likely to hold me over is lunch, so I always allow for about 150-200 calories for a late afternoon snack.  If I don't have the snack, I get a glass of wine at dinner, so I am motivated to skip it, but if I need it, I have it.

There is a tendency to over-think some aspects of eating and exercising by looking at the scientific literature and at small changes on our metabolism or biology.  The reality is, we all have biases, habits, and preferences, and the more our "diet" fits into that preexisting framework, the more successful we will be.  So, if you are a "grazer", graze away within the confines of your calorie budget.  If you are a "3 squares a day", go that direction.  As long as you get a reasonable number of nutrients for your calories, you will be fine.

I think it all depends.  Partly it depends on different peoples definitions of "snacks" and "meals". 

From what I understand it is often better (more satisfying) to get a bit of fat and protein each time you eat.  Some people have a snack, that is just a piece of fruit.  For me that would tend to spike my blood sugar and make me ravenous. 

If you have a few nuts with that fruit, or a bit of cheese, it makes it more meal-like and can help you feel full and satisfied longer.  Whether you call it a small meal or a snack is really irrelevant. 

I think it is all a matter of finding what works for you. It has been a three year process for me to get from 208 to my lowest of 136... unfortunately I have gain some back, but have started to get it back off. I always have found it somewhat difficult to stay within my calorie allowance. I try to keep it between 1400 – 1600.

I had a trainer tell me to use a format of Breakfast – 200 - 300 calories, Lunch – 300 – 400 calories, Snack – 150, Dinner – 400 – 500, Snack – 150. Which in theory seems ok, but it doesn’t work with my hunger. I tried it, but problems were dinner and snack. I would end up with a dinner that was more like 600 calories and by the time my last snack rolled around I was still hungry and those 150 calories, easily became more like 400 – 500. Now I have worked this around a bit and this seems to be working for me.

 Breakfast (7AM) – 200 – 300 (coffee, egg/egg whites, one toast), Snack (10:30AM) – 150 – 175 (Oatmeal, fruit, or cereal), Lunch (12 – 1 PM) – 200 – 300 (salad, frozen meal, soup, or left-overs), Snack (2:30PM) – 50 – 150 (fruit or yogurt), Dinner (4:30PM) – 300 – 400 (small meal), & Dinner (8PM) – 300 – 400 (small meal)

random fact: 

Dolly Parton lost her weight by eating smaller meals more often, I think 6 times a day.

She's a tiny little thing so, it must have worked for her.

I have no idea though. I think eating that often would be weird for me. I like bigger meals less often.