2-3 very large meals vs 3-6 small ones
Replies
-
levitateme wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
You said you are barely losing eating a 'small' meal and a 'large' meal. Since you aren't tracking, I'd guess you are eating larger meals than you think you are, calorie-wise.
I wasn't complaining about not losing, it's the amount I can eat and lose that I don't like. I don't want to eat less. That was my whole point.0 -
levitateme wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sorry I still don't follow. Tracking wouldn't mean I can eat more calories and still lose.melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
See your comment in bold above, if you are barely losing not tracking is probably your biggest issue, not the amount of times you eat.
Tracking would mean you would find out that you are eating more than you think. If you are barely losing, you are eating close to maintenance. Either that, or you have a really low metabolism from chronic undereating, like melanieliving said. Don't know why you're not following this.
I don't know why you think I under eat or want to eat less.0 -
melanieliving wrote: »I prefer 3 squares. It's better for me, since it allows me to listen to my actual hunger cues and allows me to have big, satisfying meals. But really, it's whatever floats your boat.
This is mostly me. I'm experimenting with adding in a snack now that I have more calories, but I can't stand the many small meals thing. (Nothing wrong with it for those for whom it works, but it's way oversold as the answer for everyone.)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sorry I still don't follow. Tracking wouldn't mean I can eat more calories and still lose.melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
See your comment in bold above, if you are barely losing not tracking is probably your biggest issue, not the amount of times you eat.
Tracking would mean you would find out that you are eating more than you think. If you are barely losing, you are eating close to maintenance. Either that, or you have a really low metabolism from chronic undereating, like melanieliving said. Don't know why you're not following this.
I don't know why you think I under eat or want to eat less.
I don't know why every thread you post in turns into an argument about you. You complained about "barely losing." That's where this all came from. And now I will back away.0 -
It does not matter. Calorie goals are what matter. Do what keeps you the most satiated and with enough energy to exercise.
This. I eat all day and night but meet/exceed my micro goal first and calories by the afternoon. Trying to gain weight at the moment but I enjoy eating/snacking frequently. It's just how I eat.
0 -
Then that's why, you're eating more calories than your body needs for weight loss. Has nothing to do with the size of your cumulative meals and all to do wtih their caloric value.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
0 -
i am a 3-meal; 2-snack; 1- dessert girl. i tried 3 meals per day, but the meals were too large and made me uncomfortable, so i found that making them smaller and adding snacks works for me!0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sorry I still don't follow. Tracking wouldn't mean I can eat more calories and still lose.melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
See your comment in bold above, if you are barely losing not tracking is probably your biggest issue, not the amount of times you eat.
It would mean you'd actually know how much you are eating so you can determine by how much you are currently over-eating.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
You said you are barely losing eating a 'small' meal and a 'large' meal. Since you aren't tracking, I'd guess you are eating larger meals than you think you are, calorie-wise.
I wasn't complaining about not losing, it's the amount I can eat and lose that I don't like. I don't want to eat less. That was my whole point.
Then track your intake so you can know where your highest calorie intake is coming from, reduce how much of that you eat, and replace it with a smaller caloric intake or the same food or of higher volume low-calorie food.0 -
I usually eat 2-4 meals a day, and I prefer to eat bigger meals as well. I tried the 6-8 small meals a day, and it made me obsessed with food because I was always worrying about the next meal. I also didn't feel full, EVER. And meal prepping in those amounts is tedious. I have found that it's easier for me to stick to my diet when eating a larger breakfast, that will keep me full for several hours.
Ultimately, I think it's all about finding a way to eat that helps you reach your calorie goal. Whatever works, right!?
Good luck ox 0 -
Definitely do whatever works for you. I don’t eat breakfast (“traditional” wisdom says this is the most important meal of the day etc) and eat 2 big meals, lunch and dinner, with an after-dinner snack. I lose weight just fine doing this and I find it more satisfying.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
You said you are barely losing eating a 'small' meal and a 'large' meal. Since you aren't tracking, I'd guess you are eating larger meals than you think you are, calorie-wise.
I wasn't complaining about not losing, it's the amount I can eat and lose that I don't like. I don't want to eat less. That was my whole point.
Then track your intake so you can know where your highest calorie intake is coming from, reduce how much of that you eat, and replace it with a smaller caloric intake or the same food or of higher volume low-calorie food.
Sorry I wasn't asking for advice, just responding to the post.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
You said you are barely losing eating a 'small' meal and a 'large' meal. Since you aren't tracking, I'd guess you are eating larger meals than you think you are, calorie-wise.
I wasn't complaining about not losing, it's the amount I can eat and lose that I don't like. I don't want to eat less. That was my whole point.
Then track your intake so you can know where your highest calorie intake is coming from, reduce how much of that you eat, and replace it with a smaller caloric intake or the same food or of higher volume low-calorie food.
Sorry I wasn't asking for advice, just responding to the post.
From what you wrote it sounds like you're in need of some advice, or a doctors appointment to determine why you're barely losing any weight....
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
You said you are barely losing eating a 'small' meal and a 'large' meal. Since you aren't tracking, I'd guess you are eating larger meals than you think you are, calorie-wise.
I wasn't complaining about not losing, it's the amount I can eat and lose that I don't like. I don't want to eat less. That was my whole point.
Then track your intake so you can know where your highest calorie intake is coming from, reduce how much of that you eat, and replace it with a smaller caloric intake or the same food or of higher volume low-calorie food.
Sorry I wasn't asking for advice, just responding to the post.
From what you wrote it sounds like you're in need of some advice, or a doctors appointment to determine why you're barely losing any weight....
It's not a medical mystery. I'm barely losing weight because I don't want to eat less. I like to eat a lot.0 -
And the solution to this problem is to start logging your food so you can determine by how much you are currently over-eating so you can determine how to lower those calories while maintaining the same volume of food. Or just exercise more. As noted, all your posts have made it sound like you are implicitly hijacking the thread for help.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
You said you are barely losing eating a 'small' meal and a 'large' meal. Since you aren't tracking, I'd guess you are eating larger meals than you think you are, calorie-wise.
I wasn't complaining about not losing, it's the amount I can eat and lose that I don't like. I don't want to eat less. That was my whole point.
Then track your intake so you can know where your highest calorie intake is coming from, reduce how much of that you eat, and replace it with a smaller caloric intake or the same food or of higher volume low-calorie food.
Sorry I wasn't asking for advice, just responding to the post.
From what you wrote it sounds like you're in need of some advice, or a doctors appointment to determine why you're barely losing any weight....
It's not a medical mystery. I'm barely losing weight because I don't want to eat less. I like to eat a lot.
Although it's interesting that your story went from "barely losing" to "losing just fine" and then back to "barely losing."
0 -
And the solution to this problem is to start logging your food so you can determine by how much you are currently over-eating so you can determine how to lower those calories while maintaining the same volume of food. Or just exercise more. As Christine said, all your posts have made it sound like you are implicitly hijacking the thread for help.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
You said you are barely losing eating a 'small' meal and a 'large' meal. Since you aren't tracking, I'd guess you are eating larger meals than you think you are, calorie-wise.
I wasn't complaining about not losing, it's the amount I can eat and lose that I don't like. I don't want to eat less. That was my whole point.
Then track your intake so you can know where your highest calorie intake is coming from, reduce how much of that you eat, and replace it with a smaller caloric intake or the same food or of higher volume low-calorie food.
Sorry I wasn't asking for advice, just responding to the post.
From what you wrote it sounds like you're in need of some advice, or a doctors appointment to determine why you're barely losing any weight....
It's not a medical mystery. I'm barely losing weight because I don't want to eat less. I like to eat a lot.
Although it's interesting that your story went from "barely losing" to "losing just fine" and then back to "barely losing."
*sigh* Please don't derail this thread with me. I don't need fixing and didn't ask for help. I simply replied to the OP. I prefer the slow and steady approach to lower calories and fast lost. I am fine.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
You said you are barely losing eating a 'small' meal and a 'large' meal. Since you aren't tracking, I'd guess you are eating larger meals than you think you are, calorie-wise.
I wasn't complaining about not losing, it's the amount I can eat and lose that I don't like. I don't want to eat less. That was my whole point.
Then track your intake so you can know where your highest calorie intake is coming from, reduce how much of that you eat, and replace it with a smaller caloric intake or the same food or of higher volume low-calorie food.
Sorry I wasn't asking for advice, just responding to the post.
From what you wrote it sounds like you're in need of some advice, or a doctors appointment to determine why you're barely losing any weight....
No, she is just trying to turn yet another thread into an "About Me". It's kinda her thang.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
You said you are barely losing eating a 'small' meal and a 'large' meal. Since you aren't tracking, I'd guess you are eating larger meals than you think you are, calorie-wise.
I wasn't complaining about not losing, it's the amount I can eat and lose that I don't like. I don't want to eat less. That was my whole point.
Then track your intake so you can know where your highest calorie intake is coming from, reduce how much of that you eat, and replace it with a smaller caloric intake or the same food or of higher volume low-calorie food.
Sorry I wasn't asking for advice, just responding to the post.
From what you wrote it sounds like you're in need of some advice, or a doctors appointment to determine why you're barely losing any weight....
No, she is just trying to turn yet another thread into an "About Me". It's kinda her thang.
That's just not true. I never asked anyone to respond to my post, to offer advice or to help me in any way. I simply replied to the OP.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
You said you are barely losing eating a 'small' meal and a 'large' meal. Since you aren't tracking, I'd guess you are eating larger meals than you think you are, calorie-wise.
I wasn't complaining about not losing, it's the amount I can eat and lose that I don't like. I don't want to eat less. That was my whole point.
Then track your intake so you can know where your highest calorie intake is coming from, reduce how much of that you eat, and replace it with a smaller caloric intake or the same food or of higher volume low-calorie food.
Sorry I wasn't asking for advice, just responding to the post.
From what you wrote it sounds like you're in need of some advice, or a doctors appointment to determine why you're barely losing any weight....
No, she is just trying to turn yet another thread into an "About Me". It's kinda her thang.
That's just not true. I never asked anyone to respond to my post, to offer advice or to help me in any way. I simply replied to the OP.
Agree to disagree.
0 -
I snack all day. My diary shows a breakfast, lunch, dinner, snack, but that's not really how it happens. For instance, I had overnight oatmeal yesterday which is just logged under lunch and dinner. But, in all reality, I ate a bit at a time of that all day. Today, I'm going to have soup and eggs logged for breakfast, but the soup is measured out and then eaten throughout the day. I'll be finishing the last of it around 11 pm tonight but it's only logged for breakfast. I find it a lot easier to log once. So, I measure everything out into their own containers and log it anywhere and then eat it before the end of the day.
There is a huge drawback: a LOT of dishes. But, I like opening my fridge and knowing there's a few things in there I can just eat if I have to or save for later if I'm not that hungry.0 -
I also snack throughout the day, though most of it is eaten at night. On work days, usually only 300-400 calories until 4ish then at least 800 calories between then and 8pm. Find it keeps me the most satisfied overall.
I can't really eat without feeling ill before 10am, and coffee at 30-35 calories keeps me full until ~11:30, when I have my oatmeal and protein powder 'breakfast' (for a total ~250 calorie 'breakfast'). That keeps me full til ~2, when I have an English Muffin with PB2 for 150 calories. Get home 4:30 and have a snack that gets added to 'lunch' while cooking a dinner that's at least 400 calories and usually involves lots of cheese and veggies. Go do horse stuff, get home and have an actual snack that gets me to at least 1200 (usually ice cream). If I get hungry again after - or my micros/macros are way off - then I'll eat more, but otherwise any 'extra' calories (my current total is 1600 to lose .5 lbs/week) are saved in case friends want to party on the weekend.
My weekends are a lot more varied, but usually involves lots of meat and eggs - cooked in fats - at more 'normal' meal times and reaching the 1600 calorie goal even if it doesn't involve going out with friends.
I've consistently averaged a 1.5/week weight loss this way (losing LOTS more at first and now losing more like .5-1 lb/week since I'm so close to my goal)
In other words: do what works for you to feel the most satisfied over the day, without going over your calories. It doesn't truly matter what time/how often so long as it's at or under what MFP gives you for calories. Note you may go over your calorie goals at first as you figure out what works. Just keep track and move on. 0 -
The issue is that the poster is still hungry at their calorie level and just barely losing. Knowing how many calories they are eating just so that they would eat less to lose more would increase the actual problem which is hunger.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sorry I still don't follow. Tracking wouldn't mean I can eat more calories and still lose.melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
See your comment in bold above, if you are barely losing not tracking is probably your biggest issue, not the amount of times you eat.
It would mean you'd actually know how much you are eating so you can determine by how much you are currently over-eating.
0 -
Do whatever works best for you. I have done 3 meals, 6 meals, and everything in between. Sometimes it just depends on what my schedule is like that day.0
-
sgthaggard wrote: »
The issue is that the poster is still hungry at their calorie level and just barely losing. Knowing how many calories they are eating just so that they would eat less to lose more would increase the actual problem which is hunger.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sorry I still don't follow. Tracking wouldn't mean I can eat more calories and still lose.melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
See your comment in bold above, if you are barely losing not tracking is probably your biggest issue, not the amount of times you eat.
It would mean you'd actually know how much you are eating so you can determine by how much you are currently over-eating.
Not really, because if you log and find out you are eating 2000 calories and that, say, 1400 calories are coming from very calorie dense items, then you can very easily reduce the intake of those foods and replace it with nutrient-dense, low-calorie, high volume food until you are eating 1800 calories.
But then again, that's basically what I said in the rest of the post you quoted: "so you can determine how to lower those calories while maintaining the same volume of food," and same volume =/= same calories.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
And the solution to this problem is to start logging your food so you can determine by how much you are currently over-eating so you can determine how to lower those calories while maintaining the same volume of food. Or just exercise more. As Christine said, all your posts have made it sound like you are implicitly hijacking the thread for help.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
You said you are barely losing eating a 'small' meal and a 'large' meal. Since you aren't tracking, I'd guess you are eating larger meals than you think you are, calorie-wise.
I wasn't complaining about not losing, it's the amount I can eat and lose that I don't like. I don't want to eat less. That was my whole point.
Then track your intake so you can know where your highest calorie intake is coming from, reduce how much of that you eat, and replace it with a smaller caloric intake or the same food or of higher volume low-calorie food.
Sorry I wasn't asking for advice, just responding to the post.
From what you wrote it sounds like you're in need of some advice, or a doctors appointment to determine why you're barely losing any weight....
It's not a medical mystery. I'm barely losing weight because I don't want to eat less. I like to eat a lot.
Although it's interesting that your story went from "barely losing" to "losing just fine" and then back to "barely losing."
*sigh* Please don't derail this thread with me. I don't need fixing and didn't ask for help. I simply replied to the OP. I prefer the slow and steady approach to lower calories and fast lost. I am fine.
Well you sure seemed to be asking for SOMETHING in your second post:Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Which then turned into people telling you how and why tracking would help, and then you saying "hey I am not asking for advice"0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
And the solution to this problem is to start logging your food so you can determine by how much you are currently over-eating so you can determine how to lower those calories while maintaining the same volume of food. Or just exercise more. As Christine said, all your posts have made it sound like you are implicitly hijacking the thread for help.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
You said you are barely losing eating a 'small' meal and a 'large' meal. Since you aren't tracking, I'd guess you are eating larger meals than you think you are, calorie-wise.
I wasn't complaining about not losing, it's the amount I can eat and lose that I don't like. I don't want to eat less. That was my whole point.
Then track your intake so you can know where your highest calorie intake is coming from, reduce how much of that you eat, and replace it with a smaller caloric intake or the same food or of higher volume low-calorie food.
Sorry I wasn't asking for advice, just responding to the post.
From what you wrote it sounds like you're in need of some advice, or a doctors appointment to determine why you're barely losing any weight....
It's not a medical mystery. I'm barely losing weight because I don't want to eat less. I like to eat a lot.
Although it's interesting that your story went from "barely losing" to "losing just fine" and then back to "barely losing."
*sigh* Please don't derail this thread with me. I don't need fixing and didn't ask for help. I simply replied to the OP. I prefer the slow and steady approach to lower calories and fast lost. I am fine.
Well you sure seemed to be asking for SOMETHING in your second post:Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Which then turned into people telling you how and why tracking would help, and then you saying "hey I am not asking for advice"
I was trying to understand. YOU made it about me, not I.0 -
sgthaggard wrote: »
The issue is that the poster is still hungry at their calorie level and just barely losing. Knowing how many calories they are eating just so that they would eat less to lose more would increase the actual problem which is hunger.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sorry I still don't follow. Tracking wouldn't mean I can eat more calories and still lose.melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
See your comment in bold above, if you are barely losing not tracking is probably your biggest issue, not the amount of times you eat.
It would mean you'd actually know how much you are eating so you can determine by how much you are currently over-eating.
Geez Louise!!! The problem isn't hunger, the problem isn't knowing how much I am eating (I have tracked and I do know), the problem isn't that I'm over-eating (otherwise I would not be losing weight). There is no problem. I would like to eat three big meals and lose weight.
Dear Lord, is it a crime to comment about not liking dieting? If that's a problem for you, then, well, sorry.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Yea, that vague answer wasn't intended to be about you and draw the discussion to you....whatever.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I was trying to understand. YOU made it about me, not I.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sgthaggard wrote: »
The issue is that the poster is still hungry at their calorie level and just barely losing. Knowing how many calories they are eating just so that they would eat less to lose more would increase the actual problem which is hunger.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sorry I still don't follow. Tracking wouldn't mean I can eat more calories and still lose.melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
See your comment in bold above, if you are barely losing not tracking is probably your biggest issue, not the amount of times you eat.
It would mean you'd actually know how much you are eating so you can determine by how much you are currently over-eating.
Geez Louise!!! The problem isn't hunger, the problem isn't knowing how much I am eating (I have tracked and I do know), the problem isn't that I'm over-eating (otherwise I would not be losing weight). There is no problem. I would like to eat three big meals and lose weight.
Then your screen name says it all. Go exercise.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sgthaggard wrote: »
The issue is that the poster is still hungry at their calorie level and just barely losing. Knowing how many calories they are eating just so that they would eat less to lose more would increase the actual problem which is hunger.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sorry I still don't follow. Tracking wouldn't mean I can eat more calories and still lose.melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
Then you are doing something wrong (tracking incorrectly) or have done metabolic damage.
I don't track, but what would that matter? How would I have done metabolic damage?
Chronic under eating is one way, though since you dont track i assume that is the reason you are not losing weight.
?? Not sure what you mean. I am losing weight.
I would love to be able to eat 3 large meals a day. I am barely losing on one small meal (a snack really) and one large meal.
See your comment in bold above, if you are barely losing not tracking is probably your biggest issue, not the amount of times you eat.
It would mean you'd actually know how much you are eating so you can determine by how much you are currently over-eating.
Geez Louise!!! The problem isn't hunger, the problem isn't knowing how much I am eating (I have tracked and I do know), the problem isn't that I'm over-eating (otherwise I would not be losing weight). There is no problem. I would like to eat three big meals and lose weight.
Then your screen name says it all. Go exercise.
Just did, thanks.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions