Meal gaps
pallavishani
Posts: 59 Member
Guys i m on a weight loss goal...thus i just eat a 900 calorie meal at 1 pm
and a 350 calorie at 9 pm...is it fine...people say i need to take small meal ..to prevent acidity..what you guys say abt this..but i i dont like it...pls advice
and a 350 calorie at 9 pm...is it fine...people say i need to take small meal ..to prevent acidity..what you guys say abt this..but i i dont like it...pls advice
0
Replies
-
if you don't have acidity, why are you worried? also if you are in calorie deficit, you can eat all day every day if you want0
-
Many people find several small meals & snacks helps curb cravings binges & spikes. But if that's not an issue for you, you don't have to.0
-
Some people prefer small meals every couple hours. Some people prefer 1-2 large meals. Some people prefer three square meals plus a snack or two. If it satisfies you and you can keep to your deficit, then stick with it.0
-
But is my meal timings too long...nutritionist says thats too long...you must have something every 2 or 3 hours...but i find hard to resist that for long lasting and have often gave up...so has anybody worked like my meal plan which i have mentioned above0
-
Plenty of people have been successful with one or two meals per day. What are the nutritionists credentials? People can take an online course and call themselves a nutritionist. Doesn't mean that they have studied extensively and know what they are saying.0
-
Do you have a medical condition that would affect meal timing and/or size? Diabetes, GERD, something else? Otherwise, if you like how you're eating now it's fine.0
-
pallavishani wrote: »But is my meal timings too long...nutritionist says thats too long...you must have something every 2 or 3 hours...but i find hard to resist that for long lasting and have often gave up...so has anybody worked like my meal plan which i have mentioned above
Why is your nutritionist saying you have to eat every 2 or 3 hours?0 -
rileysowner wrote: »pallavishani wrote: »But is my meal timings too long...nutritionist says thats too long...you must have something every 2 or 3 hours...but i find hard to resist that for long lasting and have often gave up...so has anybody worked like my meal plan which i have mentioned above
Why is your nutritionist saying you have to eat every 2 or 3 hours?
Yes my nutrionist says so ...i m confused..she also avoids giving me diet if i dont every 3 hours...lol...0 -
Are you paying her? Is what you are doing working for you? If it's working, stop paying her, and keep doing what is working. Just my 2 cents.0
-
pallavishani wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »pallavishani wrote: »But is my meal timings too long...nutritionist says thats too long...you must have something every 2 or 3 hours...but i find hard to resist that for long lasting and have often gave up...so has anybody worked like my meal plan which i have mentioned above
Why is your nutritionist saying you have to eat every 2 or 3 hours?
Yes my nutrionist says so ...i m confused..she also avoids giving me diet if i dont every 3 hours...lol...
My question is WHY. If your nutritionist has not given you are reason, then the numbers are completely arbitrary. Why did your nutritionist say you have to eat every 2 or 3 hours?0 -
Some nutritionist are still stuck on the old you need calories every so many hours to be at ur best health/metabolism. Seems she/he may need some refresher courses in nutrition0
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »Are you paying her? Is what you are doing working for you? If it's working, stop paying her, and keep doing what is working. Just my 2 cents.
Even if the poster is paying her simply saying eat every 2 or 3 hours without a reason is just picking a number out of the air. I am guessing it is either:
1) To keep the metabolic fires going. -- There is no evidence at all that eating frequently does anything to speed up overall metabolism for the day.
2) To keep from getting too hungry. -- This is purely up to personal preference. For some people eating frequently helps them stick with their calorie deficit. For others a few big meals works far better, and eating small frequent meals just makes them more hungry and more likely to give up on their calorie goal.
There may be other reasons, some are good ie. diabetics benefit usually from smaller more frequent meals. Others are just more falsehoods.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Are you paying her? Is what you are doing working for you? If it's working, stop paying her, and keep doing what is working. Just my 2 cents.
Even if the poster is paying her simply saying eat every 2 or 3 hours without a reason is just picking a number out of the air. I am guessing it is either:
1) To keep the metabolic fires going. -- There is no evidence at all that eating frequently does anything to speed up overall metabolism for the day.
2) To keep from getting too hungry. -- This is purely up to personal preference. For some people eating frequently helps them stick with their calorie deficit. For others a few big meals works far better, and eating small frequent meals just makes them more hungry and more likely to give up on their calorie goal.
There may be other reasons, some are good ie. diabetics benefit usually from smaller more frequent meals. Others are just more falsehoods.
Absolutely, and I did make some assumptions based on the information in the posts.
1) there is no mention of any medical conditions which would necessitate this manner of consumption. Despite being asked this question.
2) The OP seems to be happy with eating two meals, the first one larger than the second. She is asking if there is anything wrong with that.
I asked about the nutritionists credentials, no answer regarding that. So I am doubtful that this information is being provided for any valid medical rationale, but merely propagating the same old regurgitated nonsense such as the examples you provided here.0 -
There are many people who eat all of their calories in a limited amount of hours a day. It is a plan called intermittent fasting. It helps them to eat at a deficit and they are successful in losing weight. If you do not have a specific medical condition or medication that requires you eat first to use, there is no need for a specific time frame for meals. If no other factors, you can eat whenever you want and lose weight as long as you eat fewer calories than you burn.0
-
rileysowner wrote: »pallavishani wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »pallavishani wrote: »But is my meal timings too long...nutritionist says thats too long...you must have something every 2 or 3 hours...but i find hard to resist that for long lasting and have often gave up...so has anybody worked like my meal plan which i have mentioned above
Why is your nutritionist saying you have to eat every 2 or 3 hours?
Yes my nutrionist says so ...i m confused..she also avoids giving me diet if i dont every 3 hours...lol...
My question is WHY. If your nutritionist has not given you are reason, then the numbers are completely arbitrary. Why did your nutritionist say you have to eat every 2 or 3 hours?
To keep the metabolisim high...so that bbody dosent store fats...and preserves muscle...0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Are you paying her? Is what you are doing working for you? If it's working, stop paying her, and keep doing what is working. Just my 2 cents.
Even if the poster is paying her simply saying eat every 2 or 3 hours without a reason is just picking a number out of the air. I am guessing it is either:
1) To keep the metabolic fires going. -- There is no evidence at all that eating frequently does anything to speed up overall metabolism for the day.
2) To keep from getting too hungry. -- This is purely up to personal preference. For some people eating frequently helps them stick with their calorie deficit. For others a few big meals works far better, and eating small frequent meals just makes them more hungry and more likely to give up on their calorie goal.
There may be other reasons, some are good ie. diabetics benefit usually from smaller more frequent meals. Others are just more falsehoods.
Absolutely, and I did make some assumptions based on the information in the posts.
1) there is no mention of any medical conditions which would necessitate this manner of consumption. Despite being asked this question.
2) The OP seems to be happy with eating two meals, the first one larger than the second. She is asking if there is anything wrong with that.
I asked about the nutritionists credentials, no answer regarding that. So I am doubtful that this information is being provided for any valid medical rationale, but merely propagating the same old regurgitated nonsense such as the examples you provided here.
Well i said na..to keep metabolism working...preserving muscles and npt storing fats...becausr the body thinks that food is coming every 2 hours so ...0 -
pallavishani wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Are you paying her? Is what you are doing working for you? If it's working, stop paying her, and keep doing what is working. Just my 2 cents.
Even if the poster is paying her simply saying eat every 2 or 3 hours without a reason is just picking a number out of the air. I am guessing it is either:
1) To keep the metabolic fires going. -- There is no evidence at all that eating frequently does anything to speed up overall metabolism for the day.
2) To keep from getting too hungry. -- This is purely up to personal preference. For some people eating frequently helps them stick with their calorie deficit. For others a few big meals works far better, and eating small frequent meals just makes them more hungry and more likely to give up on their calorie goal.
There may be other reasons, some are good ie. diabetics benefit usually from smaller more frequent meals. Others are just more falsehoods.
Absolutely, and I did make some assumptions based on the information in the posts.
1) there is no mention of any medical conditions which would necessitate this manner of consumption. Despite being asked this question.
2) The OP seems to be happy with eating two meals, the first one larger than the second. She is asking if there is anything wrong with that.
I asked about the nutritionists credentials, no answer regarding that. So I am doubtful that this information is being provided for any valid medical rationale, but merely propagating the same old regurgitated nonsense such as the examples you provided here.
Well i said na..to keep metabolism working...preserving muscles and npt storing fats...becausr the body thinks that food is coming every 2 hours so ...
That's the regurgitated bunk I was referring to. Your metabolism won't slow down. Eat however you like. Nothing wrong with what you are doing ☺0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »pallavishani wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Are you paying her? Is what you are doing working for you? If it's working, stop paying her, and keep doing what is working. Just my 2 cents.
Even if the poster is paying her simply saying eat every 2 or 3 hours without a reason is just picking a number out of the air. I am guessing it is either:
1) To keep the metabolic fires going. -- There is no evidence at all that eating frequently does anything to speed up overall metabolism for the day.
2) To keep from getting too hungry. -- This is purely up to personal preference. For some people eating frequently helps them stick with their calorie deficit. For others a few big meals works far better, and eating small frequent meals just makes them more hungry and more likely to give up on their calorie goal.
There may be other reasons, some are good ie. diabetics benefit usually from smaller more frequent meals. Others are just more falsehoods.
Absolutely, and I did make some assumptions based on the information in the posts.
1) there is no mention of any medical conditions which would necessitate this manner of consumption. Despite being asked this question.
2) The OP seems to be happy with eating two meals, the first one larger than the second. She is asking if there is anything wrong with that.
I asked about the nutritionists credentials, no answer regarding that. So I am doubtful that this information is being provided for any valid medical rationale, but merely propagating the same old regurgitated nonsense such as the examples you provided here.
Well i said na..to keep metabolism working...preserving muscles and npt storing fats...becausr the body thinks that food is coming every 2 hours so ...
That's the regurgitated bunk I was referring to. Your metabolism won't slow down. Eat however you like. Nothing wrong with what you are doing ☺
Thnks0 -
If it doesn't bother you, keep doing it. Important that it works for YOU.
My dad ate one meal a day, with maybe a snack on fruit at noon. I couldn't handle that but it worked for him,0 -
Thnksriffraff2112 wrote: »If it doesn't bother you, keep doing it. Important that it works for YOU.
My dad ate one meal a day, with maybe a snack on fruit at noon. I couldn't handle that but it worked for him,
Oh wow...did he loose weight...???
0 -
pallavishani wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »pallavishani wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »pallavishani wrote: »But is my meal timings too long...nutritionist says thats too long...you must have something every 2 or 3 hours...but i find hard to resist that for long lasting and have often gave up...so has anybody worked like my meal plan which i have mentioned above
Why is your nutritionist saying you have to eat every 2 or 3 hours?
Yes my nutrionist says so ...i m confused..she also avoids giving me diet if i dont every 3 hours...lol...
My question is WHY. If your nutritionist has not given you are reason, then the numbers are completely arbitrary. Why did your nutritionist say you have to eat every 2 or 3 hours?
To keep the metabolisim high...so that bbody dosent store fats...and preserves muscle...
There is absolutely no truth to that. Find a different nutritionist.0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Are you paying her? Is what you are doing working for you? If it's working, stop paying her, and keep doing what is working. Just my 2 cents.
Even if the poster is paying her simply saying eat every 2 or 3 hours without a reason is just picking a number out of the air. I am guessing it is either:
1) To keep the metabolic fires going. -- There is no evidence at all that eating frequently does anything to speed up overall metabolism for the day.
2) To keep from getting too hungry. -- This is purely up to personal preference. For some people eating frequently helps them stick with their calorie deficit. For others a few big meals works far better, and eating small frequent meals just makes them more hungry and more likely to give up on their calorie goal.
There may be other reasons, some are good ie. diabetics benefit usually from smaller more frequent meals. Others are just more falsehoods.
Absolutely, and I did make some assumptions based on the information in the posts.
1) there is no mention of any medical conditions which would necessitate this manner of consumption. Despite being asked this question.
2) The OP seems to be happy with eating two meals, the first one larger than the second. She is asking if there is anything wrong with that.
I asked about the nutritionists credentials, no answer regarding that. So I am doubtful that this information is being provided for any valid medical rationale, but merely propagating the same old regurgitated nonsense such as the examples you provided here.
We are not in disagreement. I just read your post incorrectly. This nutritionist sounds like many who spout the keep the metabolism going stuff.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Are you paying her? Is what you are doing working for you? If it's working, stop paying her, and keep doing what is working. Just my 2 cents.
Even if the poster is paying her simply saying eat every 2 or 3 hours without a reason is just picking a number out of the air. I am guessing it is either:
1) To keep the metabolic fires going. -- There is no evidence at all that eating frequently does anything to speed up overall metabolism for the day.
2) To keep from getting too hungry. -- This is purely up to personal preference. For some people eating frequently helps them stick with their calorie deficit. For others a few big meals works far better, and eating small frequent meals just makes them more hungry and more likely to give up on their calorie goal.
There may be other reasons, some are good ie. diabetics benefit usually from smaller more frequent meals. Others are just more falsehoods.
Absolutely, and I did make some assumptions based on the information in the posts.
1) there is no mention of any medical conditions which would necessitate this manner of consumption. Despite being asked this question.
2) The OP seems to be happy with eating two meals, the first one larger than the second. She is asking if there is anything wrong with that.
I asked about the nutritionists credentials, no answer regarding that. So I am doubtful that this information is being provided for any valid medical rationale, but merely propagating the same old regurgitated nonsense such as the examples you provided here.
We are not in disagreement. I just read your post incorrectly. This nutritionist sounds like many who spout the keep the metabolism going stuff.
That's what I suspected, that's why I clarified ☺0 -
rileysowner wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Are you paying her? Is what you are doing working for you? If it's working, stop paying her, and keep doing what is working. Just my 2 cents.
Even if the poster is paying her simply saying eat every 2 or 3 hours without a reason is just picking a number out of the air. I am guessing it is either:
1) To keep the metabolic fires going. -- There is no evidence at all that eating frequently does anything to speed up overall metabolism for the day.
2) To keep from getting too hungry. -- This is purely up to personal preference. For some people eating frequently helps them stick with their calorie deficit. For others a few big meals works far better, and eating small frequent meals just makes them more hungry and more likely to give up on their calorie goal.
There may be other reasons, some are good ie. diabetics benefit usually from smaller more frequent meals. Others are just more falsehoods.
Absolutely, and I did make some assumptions based on the information in the posts.
1) there is no mention of any medical conditions which would necessitate this manner of consumption. Despite being asked this question.
2) The OP seems to be happy with eating two meals, the first one larger than the second. She is asking if there is anything wrong with that.
I asked about the nutritionists credentials, no answer regarding that. So I am doubtful that this information is being provided for any valid medical rationale, but merely propagating the same old regurgitated nonsense such as the examples you provided here.
We are not in disagreement. I just read your post incorrectly. This nutritionist sounds like many who spout the keep the metabolism going stuff.
She herself eats 8 mini meals a day ..0 -
pallavishani wrote: »She herself eats 8 mini meals a day ..
Good for her. The point is that it doesn't matter if you eat 8 mini meals a day or one large meal a day - your metabolism still keeps going and the only thing that matters is how many calories are being taken in. 1500 calories in a day is 1500 calories a day, whether you eat fifteen 100 calorie meals or one 1500 calorie meal. Meal timing is completely irrelevant as far as weight loss goes. It all comes down to personal preference. If two meals a day works for you, keep eating two meals a day and ignore the nutritionist - especially since she's spouting junk science anyway.
Not saying she's wrong for eating 8 mini meals a day if that's what works for her, but it's also not the "only" or "right" way to do it. Google "intermittent fasting", where people eat all their calories within a specified timeframe every day - 4/6/8 hours or whatever. Many people have had great success with weight loss doing intermittent fasting. Then again, many people have had great success eating within just about any time framework you can imagine, as long as they maintained a caloric deficit.0 -
pallavishani wrote: »She herself eats 8 mini meals a day ..
Good for her. The point is that it doesn't matter if you eat 8 mini meals a day or one large meal a day - your metabolism still keeps going and the only thing that matters is how many calories are being taken in. 1500 calories in a day is 1500 calories a day, whether you eat fifteen 100 calorie meals or one 1500 calorie meal. Meal timing is completely irrelevant as far as weight loss goes. It all comes down to personal preference. If two meals a day works for you, keep eating two meals a day and ignore the nutritionist - especially since she's spouting junk science anyway.
Not saying she's wrong for eating 8 mini meals a day if that's what works for her, but it's also not the "only" or "right" way to do it. Google "intermittent fasting", where people eat all their calories within a specified timeframe every day - 4/6/8 hours or whatever. Many people have had great success with weight loss doing intermittent fasting. Then again, many people have had great success eating within just about any time framework you can imagine, as long as they maintained a caloric deficit.
Yes absolutely right...thats what even i mean it completlely....but here in india..its like whoever wanna loose weight has to eat atleast 5 meals a day..
For example is someone eats 4 breads in lunch..she needs to spread out the bread means she has to consume 2 bread in lunch and 2 in dinner...because they even say that our body cant digest so much food in one go..0 -
If you like it, keep doing it. If you dont, then do something else. Meal timing isn't important for weight loss.0
-
pallavishani wrote: »pallavishani wrote: »She herself eats 8 mini meals a day ..
Good for her. The point is that it doesn't matter if you eat 8 mini meals a day or one large meal a day - your metabolism still keeps going and the only thing that matters is how many calories are being taken in. 1500 calories in a day is 1500 calories a day, whether you eat fifteen 100 calorie meals or one 1500 calorie meal. Meal timing is completely irrelevant as far as weight loss goes. It all comes down to personal preference. If two meals a day works for you, keep eating two meals a day and ignore the nutritionist - especially since she's spouting junk science anyway.
Not saying she's wrong for eating 8 mini meals a day if that's what works for her, but it's also not the "only" or "right" way to do it. Google "intermittent fasting", where people eat all their calories within a specified timeframe every day - 4/6/8 hours or whatever. Many people have had great success with weight loss doing intermittent fasting. Then again, many people have had great success eating within just about any time framework you can imagine, as long as they maintained a caloric deficit.
Yes absolutely right...thats what even i mean it completlely....but here in india..its like whoever wanna loose weight has to eat atleast 5 meals a day..
For example is someone eats 4 breads in lunch..she needs to spread out the bread means she has to consume 2 bread in lunch and 2 in dinner...because they even say that our body cant digest so much food in one go..
Saying it again. For weight loss meal timing and frequency has repeatedly been shown to be irrelevant. It is all about maintaining a calorie deficit.
The only place meal timing plays a role is whether or not it helps an individual stick to their calorie goals. For some people that works best eating a couple of big meals a day. For others that works better eating a bunch of small meals a day. The thing is, a person who would stick to their calorie goal eating a couple of big meals a day would give up much quicker if forced to eat a bunch of small meals a day. Similarly a person who feels satisfied with a bunch of small meals a day would likely give up on their calorie goal if forced to eat a couple of big meals a day.
The take home from all this is find what works for you so that you feel satisfied with the number of calories you are eating and can stick to that goal because meal timing and frequency don't really play a role in weight loss. If your two meals a day works for you, and you can stick to your eating goals doing so, stick with that.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »pallavishani wrote: »pallavishani wrote: »She herself eats 8 mini meals a day ..
Good for her. The point is that it doesn't matter if you eat 8 mini meals a day or one large meal a day - your metabolism still keeps going and the only thing that matters is how many calories are being taken in. 1500 calories in a day is 1500 calories a day, whether you eat fifteen 100 calorie meals or one 1500 calorie meal. Meal timing is completely irrelevant as far as weight loss goes. It all comes down to personal preference. If two meals a day works for you, keep eating two meals a day and ignore the nutritionist - especially since she's spouting junk science anyway.
Not saying she's wrong for eating 8 mini meals a day if that's what works for her, but it's also not the "only" or "right" way to do it. Google "intermittent fasting", where people eat all their calories within a specified timeframe every day - 4/6/8 hours or whatever. Many people have had great success with weight loss doing intermittent fasting. Then again, many people have had great success eating within just about any time framework you can imagine, as long as they maintained a caloric deficit.
Yes absolutely right...thats what even i mean it completlely....but here in india..its like whoever wanna loose weight has to eat atleast 5 meals a day..
For example is someone eats 4 breads in lunch..she needs to spread out the bread means she has to consume 2 bread in lunch and 2 in dinner...because they even say that our body cant digest so much food in one go..
Saying it again. For weight loss meal timing and frequency has repeatedly been shown to be irrelevant. It is all about maintaining a calorie deficit.
The only place meal timing plays a role is whether or not it helps an individual stick to their calorie goals. For some people that works best eating a couple of big meals a day. For others that works better eating a bunch of small meals a day. The thing is, a person who would stick to their calorie goal eating a couple of big meals a day would give up much quicker if forced to eat a bunch of small meals a day. Similarly a person who feels satisfied with a bunch of small meals a day would likely give up on their calorie goal if forced to eat a couple of big meals a day.
The take home from all this is find what works for you so that you feel satisfied with the number of calories you are eating and can stick to that goal because meal timing and frequency don't really play a role in weight loss. If your two meals a day works for you, and you can stick to your eating goals doing so, stick with that.rileysowner wrote: »pallavishani wrote: »pallavishani wrote: »She herself eats 8 mini meals a day ..
Good for her. The point is that it doesn't matter if you eat 8 mini meals a day or one large meal a day - your metabolism still keeps going and the only thing that matters is how many calories are being taken in. 1500 calories in a day is 1500 calories a day, whether you eat fifteen 100 calorie meals or one 1500 calorie meal. Meal timing is completely irrelevant as far as weight loss goes. It all comes down to personal preference. If two meals a day works for you, keep eating two meals a day and ignore the nutritionist - especially since she's spouting junk science anyway.
Not saying she's wrong for eating 8 mini meals a day if that's what works for her, but it's also not the "only" or "right" way to do it. Google "intermittent fasting", where people eat all their calories within a specified timeframe every day - 4/6/8 hours or whatever. Many people have had great success with weight loss doing intermittent fasting. Then again, many people have had great success eating within just about any time framework you can imagine, as long as they maintained a caloric deficit.
Yes absolutely right...thats what even i mean it completlely....but here in india..its like whoever wanna loose weight has to eat atleast 5 meals a day..
For example is someone eats 4 breads in lunch..she needs to spread out the bread means she has to consume 2 bread in lunch and 2 in dinner...because they even say that our body cant digest so much food in one go..
Saying it again. For weight loss meal timing and frequency has repeatedly been shown to be irrelevant. It is all about maintaining a calorie deficit.
The only place meal timing plays a role is whether or not it helps an individual stick to their calorie goals. For some people that works best eating a couple of big meals a day. For others that works better eating a bunch of small meals a day. The thing is, a person who would stick to their calorie goal eating a couple of big meals a day would give up much quicker if forced to eat a bunch of small meals a day. Similarly a person who feels satisfied with a bunch of small meals a day would likely give up on their calorie goal if forced to eat a couple of big meals a day.
The take home from all this is find what works for you so that you feel satisfied with the number of calories you are eating and can stick to that goal because meal timing and frequency don't really play a role in weight loss. If your two meals a day works for you, and you can stick to your eating goals doing so, stick with that.
Thnks a lot for changing the perspective of my mind...and lightening too0
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K 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