Recent research suggests that feeding frequency may affect feed efficiency in pigs. Therefore, our objective was to compare 2 divergent feeding patterns and their effects on pig performance, tissue accretion, body composition and behavior. Following a 3 d acclimation to individual pens, 48 gilts were randomly blocked by body weight (55.9 ± 5.2 kg on test BW) into 2 feeding treatments; 1) ad libitum access or 2) twice daily gilts that were allowed to eat ad libitum between 0800 and 0900 h and again from 1700 to 1800 h. Performance was recorded weekly for 55 d and ADG, ADFI, and G:F was recorded and calculated. Body composition was assessed in 12 gilts per treatment using dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at day −3 and 55, and tissue accretion rates were calculated. Video was recorded on d 51 and continuously watched from 7:00–19:00 h to assess the time pigs spent standing, sitting, lying and eating. Performance and DXA data were analyzed using the Mixed procedure and behavior data were analyzed using the Glimmix procedure of SAS. The model included the fixed effect of treatment, covariate of on test BW, and pig as the experimental unit. Gilts fed twice daily had lower ADG and ADFI compared with ad libitum gilts (P ≤ 0.01); however, no treatment difference in G:F was observed (P = 0.41). No treatment differences were observed in body composition at d 55. However, gilts fed twice daily had lower fat (twice = 297 vs. ad libitum = 339 g/d), lean (twice = 673 vs. ad libitum = 737 g/day), and protein (twice = 136 vs. ad libitum = 149 g/d) daily accretion rates compared with ad libitum gilts (P = 0.01). No difference in bone accretion was observed. Gilts fed twice daily spent less time lying and eating compared with ad libitum gilts (P ≤ 0.05). However, treatments did not differ in duration of time spent sitting or standing (P ≥ 0.19). In conclusion, twice daily feeding resulted in reduced growth, tissue accretion, and lying behavior compared with ad libitum feeding. However, feeding frequency did not alter feed efficiency. This pig performance can be partly explained by the differences in caloric and nutrient intake.