Note: I asked this question on the Skeptics exchange and was redirected here. Also note, I was informed that it may have been a duplicate on the Skeptics forum, but I was subsequently linked to a post regarding overall health benefits (or lack thereof) of feeding frequency - not strictly metabolism
So, I've lived a sedentary lifestyle these past few years (ahem, whole life), and developed a bit of a spare tire around my midsection. There are several people at work who live very active, healthy lifestyles, and I have decided that I want to be more like them, and less like my current status.
I've received a lot of good-natured, helpful advice from them, and the overwhelming majority of it, I've been able to research on Google Scholar or my university's online library to corroborate as being factual or scientifically plausible. To the best of my knowledge and research, their advice has been generally very good and scientifically sound.
There is one thing they keep suggesting I do to help boost my metabolism: eat numerous (snack every 2-3 hours) small meals a day rather than a traditional 3-meal breakfast, lunch and dinner. For a variety of reasons, this does not personally suit me, and quite frankly, the reasons I've been given as to why this happens don't seem to line up with what little research I have seen on the topic.
With all things being equal other than the frequency of feeding, does the frequency of feeding (numerous small meals as opposed to three regular meals) provide a metabolic boost over another?
Please note that I am specifically asking about the effect each method has on metabolic rates, although any related information as to overall benefits or disadvantages to either dietary method are welcome.