Nutrition myth buster: How the “metabolism myth” created a nation of snackers

Jennifer Bowden

Nutrition writer·New Zealand Listener·

17 Aug, 2026 06:04 PM4 mins to read

‌

Subscribe to listenAccess to Herald Premium articles require a Premium subscription. Subscribe now to listen.Subscribe now

‌

Save

Share this article

Reminder, this is a Premium article and requires a subscription to read.

• Copy Link
• Email
• Facebook
• Twitter/X
• LinkedIn
• Reddit

Somewhere between bodybuilding culture, dieting trends and wellness media, many of us became convinced that missing a mid-morning snack might send our metabolism into hibernation. Photo / Getty Images

A generation of adults was raised to fear hunger. The message was hard to miss: never get too hungry, always carry a snack and whatever you do, don’t let your metabolism “switch off”.

Conveniently, this advice also created a market for breakfast bars, snack packs, protein balls, yoghurt
pouches and emergency desk snacks. Somewhere between the bodybuilding culture, dieting trends and wellness media, many of us became convinced that missing a mid-morning snack might send our metabolism into hibernation.

Decades ago, researchers noticed people who had a “nibbling” eating pattern tended to have a lower body weight, leading to the suggestion that eating small snacks and meals frequently during the day might boost the body’s metabolism. One theory was that the energy cost of digesting, absorbing and processing nutrients from several smaller meals might be greater than the energy cost of eating only a couple of bigger meals. This is known as the thermic effect of food. While a few studies suggested this might be true, the vast majority found the energy expended for snacking was the same as for fewer, larger meals.

Added to that, studies involving people living in metabolic chambers, where researchers can directly measure 24-hour energy expenditure, produced a clearer result. Similar findings have emerged from studies using the “doubly labelled water method”, another of the most accurate tools available for measuring energy expenditure.

With the doubly labelled water method, participants drink a harmless dose of water containing special “tracer” forms of hydrogen and oxygen. Researchers then measure how quickly these tracers leave the body during the following days or weeks to calculate the participant’s energy spend. Using this method, they found there was no difference in total 24-hour energy spend between “nibbling” meal patterns – many small meals, – and what they called “gorging”, – fewer larger meals, when the total energy intake was the same over 24 hours.

These findings are important because the myth specifically claims meal frequency boosts metabolism. But if 24-hour energy spend doesn’t rise, then metabolism hasn’t been meaningfully “boosted”.

Some research suggests highly irregular eating patterns may reduce the thermic response to meals compared with a more consistent eating routine. However, these studies are relatively small and typically look only at the immediate metabolic aftermath of a meal, not the whole 24-hour period. It seems though, that this small, debated effect of meal regularity may have become exaggerated into the sweeping claim that everyone must eat every two or three hours to “keep their metabolism running”.

In reality, your body is best served by listening to its hunger and fullness cues – eating when hungry, finishing a meal when full. For some people, this may require only three main meals a day; others will find it necessary to eat snacks to satiate their hunger. Certainly, some people do benefit from frequent eating, including athletes with high energy demands, pregnant women experiencing nausea, people with certain medical conditions and young children.

Because children have relatively small stomachs and high energy requirements for growth and activity, nutritious snacks between main meals can help them maintain concentration and energy levels throughout the day. Research has found hunger and skipping breakfast in kids is associated with poorer attention, classroom behaviour and school engagement. So there are good reasons to keep kids well-fed and stocked with snacks and lunch on school days.

The idea of needing to stoke our metabolic fire with snacks is one of nutrition’s most persistent myths. Somewhere along the way, ordinary hunger became something to fear and snacks became nutritional insurance. But evidence suggests otherwise. Whether you prefer three meals a day or a pattern that includes snacks is largely a matter of appetite, routine and personal preference. Your metabolism doesn’t need constant feeding to stay awake – it will tick along quite happily between meals.

Save

Share this article

Reminder, this is a Premium article and requires a subscription to read.

• Copy Link
• Email
• Facebook
• Twitter/X
• LinkedIn
• Reddit