Six small meals

The claim, as heard: "Eat six small meals a day to keep your metabolism burning — big gaps make the body store fat."

What the data show. The thermic effect of food — the energy spent digesting — is a share of what is eaten, so splitting the same food into more meals spends the same total on digestion; it does not "keep the fire going". A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing meal frequencies found no meaningful difference in weight or body composition between fewer and more meals at similar intake. The trials are short and heterogeneous, so the finding is "no effect detected" rather than a precise zero, but it is consistent, and the mechanism the claim relies on does not exist. There is a second-order finding worth knowing: more eating occasions tend to mean somewhat higher intake, because every occasion is a chance to eat more than planned.

Verdict: false. Evidence grade B: a network meta-analysis of short trials, plus the definitional point about the thermic effect.

The grain of truth. Meal frequency is a genuine tool for hunger, in both directions. Some people manage a deficit better with several small meals; others with two or three larger, more satisfying ones — the 16:8 pattern is the latter, formalised. The right number is the one that keeps you inside the day's total.

One sentence to remember: the number of meals changes how hungry you are, not how much you burn; pick the number that makes the total easiest to keep.