Abstract
The influence of meal frequency and timing on health and disease has been a topic of interest for many years. While epidemiological evidence indicates an association between higher meal frequencies and lower disease risk, experimental trials have shown conflicting results. Furthermore, recent prospective research has demonstrated a significant increase in disease risk with a high meal frequency (≥6 meals/day) as compared to a low meal frequency (1–2 meals/day). Apart from meal frequency and timing we also have to consider breakfast consumption and the distribution of daily energy intake, caloric restriction, and night-time eating. A central role in this complex scenario is played by the fasting period length between two meals. The physiological underpinning of these interconnected variables may be through internal circadian clocks, and food consumption that is asynchronous with natural circadian rhythms may exert adverse health effects and increase disease risk. Additionally, alterations in meal frequency and meal timing have the potential to influence energy and macronutrient intake.A regular meal pattern including breakfast consumption, consuming a higher proportion of energy early in the day, reduced meal frequency (i.e., 2–3 meals/day), and regular fasting periods may provide physiological benefits such as reduced inflammation, improved circadian rhythmicity, increased autophagy and stress resistance, and modulation of the gut microbiota
Highlights
These data suggest that 1–2 meals are better than three or more, but how can we integrate these results with previous, older research? Both older studies [9,10,12,29,30] and more recent research [31] seem to suggest that a higher meal frequency can reduce weight gain risk; recent large prospective studies seem to support that frequent snacking increases the risk of weight gain [32,33] and type 2 diabetes [16,17]
While a recent meta-analysis reported that high versus low meal frequencies result in negligible differences in body weight and composition changes [117], many of the experimental trials of meal frequency have not adequately considered some of the determinants highlighted in this article which could influence these outcomes
Beyond body weight and composition, it is likely that different eating patterns may exert some degree of differential effects on physiological processes, even in isocaloric conditions (Figure 2)
Summary
In Western culture, it is a common idea that the daily food intake should be divided into three square meals: breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Nutrients 2019, 11, 719 eating more than once per day was unhealthy. They ate in the morning (ientaculum) and at noon (prandium), these meals were frugal, light and quick [1]. One of the most-read texts was the Collationes (compilation) by Giovanni Cassiano, and it is worth mentioning that the Italian term for breakfast is “colazione”, which is derived precisely from the Latin word “collationes” [3]. Dinner in its current form and timing became popular after the widespread use of artificial light, which facilitated eating before dawn and after dark [3]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
