Eating Once a Day

luisalg14

I personally would be either 1. grumpy or 2. not energetic enough to exercise. But if you can go about your day without any such incident, than I'd say there's nothing wrong with it, other than 1000-1500cals sounds rather low for a man. Hey, maybe you should throw in dessert or a treat before bed

My husband does this quite often; not on purpose though, as he's not in need of weightloss, he's just too busy sometimes to eat during the day (other than a couple cups of coffee). I always reprimand him because I think he's eating too few calories (not so much on the frequency, for that, as other posters have pointed out, it shouldn't matter whether you eat 1 or 5 meals a day as long as it suits your caloric needs), but he does try to make up for it by having a bunch of stuff other than dinner (which tends to be within the1000cal range for him) such as a fruit and veg blast as soon as he walks through the door, homemade muffins or banana bread, chips, milk, cereal, etc.

xoemmytee

So much crap in this thread. You are not going to lose muscle mass because you save all your calories for an evening meal. Your body does not digest food so quickly that it burns through a huge dinner and starts eating your muscle in less than 24 hours. And your metabolism is not a furnace that needs to be stoked at regular intervals. As long as your heart is beating in your chest, your metabolism is working.

I eat one meal a day. At night. 1700 calories. I'm losing fat and maintaining muscle just fine.

There's an intermittent fasting group on here if you're interested (http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/49-intermittent-fasting), or you can read Leangains.com.

I would add that, at first glance, I think 1500 is way too low for you, OP, but it depends on your goals.

finally a voice of reason in here! I also agree that the calories are too low for OP's stats.

If you eat all of your calories at night, how does your body process all that food, since essentially your metabolism shuts down while you're sleeping?

obviously why so many people die in their sleep

Carnivor0us

I usually eat two meals a day, sometimes just one. Even on my two-meal days, I eat more in one meal than some folks eat in a day, and it's not affected my weight loss.

Most people feel grumpy on a one-meal a day plan because it's probably full of carbs that put blood glucose levels on a fun roller coaster ride.

EmilyEmpowered

Eating once a day is not a problem, although I would think you would want even more calories than 1500, and dfeinitely not 1000. Eating breakfast or 5-6 small meals a day may work for some people. That is what I am curently doing, but I personally lost a lot of weight doing Intermittent fasting and then using a feeding window, at which point I only ate one meal and one snack during a specific time frame each day. It worked great for me during that time. I love BIG meals, and this was what I got. I still lost over 100 pounds, so obviously skipping breakfast and those other 4 meals each day did not hinder my weight loss.

I switched to now eating smaller meals mostly because I work 10 hours a day and it is hard for me to have time to sit and eat a huge meal at one time. I spread it out and mostly eat snacky things that I can have at my desk, and also a salad which I can eat quickly on a ten minute break, etc. If I could I would have continued eating all my calories in one time frame, because it let me eat those big higher calorie meals that I PREFER. As long as you have a calorie deficit, it does not matter what time you eat those calories.

The problem I see here, is that you need MORE calories than 1500.

ETA: also, on the weekends I still just eat one or two big meals. And another pro to spreading my food out is that it is easier FOR ME to fit in more protein, which is something I wasnt focusing on before.

bpmartyr

So much crap in this thread. You are not going to lose muscle mass because you save all your calories for an evening meal. Your body does not digest food so quickly that it burns through a huge dinner and starts eating your muscle in less than 24 hours. And your metabolism is not a furnace that needs to be stoked at regular intervals. As long as your heart is beating in your chest, your metabolism is working.

I eat one meal a day. At night. 1700 calories. I'm losing fat and maintaining muscle just fine.

There's an intermittent fasting group on here if you're interested (http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/49-intermittent-fasting), or you can read Leangains.com.

I would add that, at first glance, I think 1500 is way too low for you, OP, but it depends on your goals.

^^ This

kimiel51

If you eat all of your calories at night, how does your body process all that food, since essentially your metabolism shuts down while you're sleeping?

Your metabolism NEVER shuts down, unless you are dead.
[/quote

:laugh: ]

MG_Fit

Someone didn't know where to put the :laugh:

:laugh:

Dragonwolf

I know there is always an arguement over this but wanted to see what you guys thought. I'm currently on day 4 of eating one meal per day. I eat nothing all day until dinner time when I make dinner for my kids. I decided to do this because I am always hungry regardless of if i eat lunch or not and I haven't been a breakfast eater most of my adult life. What do you guys think is 1000- to 1500 calories a day enough. I'm a male 39 years old 5'9" 178lbs currently. I would like to lose my belly and then focus on exercise after I've lost the weight.

No problem with eating all your food in 1 meal, 3 meals or 6 meals. Whatever suits you best.

Your calories are very low, too low I would say. Why not start higher and adjust depending on what results you get?

Really don't think waiting to exercise until you have lost weight is a good idea at all - exercise now for health and to preserve muscle mass while you are at a deficit. Mix of both strength and cardio would be best.

PS - ignore all the nonsense about metabolism stopping/starting when you sleep/wake and lighting fires - what on earth do they teach in schools these days?

Not nutrition, that's for sure. Well, beyond the Food Pyramid party line (and hell, even that's nonexistent beyond, like 5th grade).

No, your metabolism doesn't "shut down"...unless you're dead. No, you don't need to eat every hour or two. No, it won't mess up your metabolism.

Think about this for a moment - up until very, very recently (and for some people in some places, not even now), food abundance was cyclical or even completely not predictable. You might be able to bag yourself a large animal that would last you for the next two weeks, or you may have to subsist on grubs or whatever you could find that was remotely edible. Even in times of plenty, you were probably too busy tracking and hunting that animal, or foraging for vegetation, to eat even three meals a day, let alone six. Even with the rise of agriculture, extremes in unseasonable weather weren't uncommon, and things like too much rain, too little rain, too hot, or too cold (particularly at the start of the growing season) would lead to famine years, making food scarce for people. During lean times, you may even be lucky if you ate once a day, let alone multiple times per day.

Yet here you sit now, meaning the countless people who came before you and did just that, survived just fine and with metabolisms that were perfectly well-suited to support fertility (ask any woman who's ever been at too low a body fat percentage, or with truly messed up hormones, what it does to their fertility and monthly cycle).

kellijauch

No one on here is going to tell you this is a good idea. You know better than that.

MG_Fit

No one on here is going to tell you this is a good idea. You know better than that.

Actually many on here are saying it's a good idea.

Loulady

There is nothing wrong with eating once a day. It will not have any adverse effects on your metabolism, despite the claims of some previous posters. There's really nothing to back that up.

I'm not sure the 1000 to 1500 calories is going to be enough, but if you're losing weight, go for about a 20% deficit from your maintenance calories. I wouldn't go lower than that.

As long as you are hitting your calorie goals every day, there is no difference between 1 or 13 meals in the day. I personally enjoy the freedom of essentially "skipping breakfast" and eating 2 meals a day. They are bigger, satisfying meals, and I rarely have any kind of issues with feeling super starving.

This.

msarro

There is so much misinformation and bad advice in this thread, it's unbelievable. It makes no difference to your body composition whether you have one 2000 calorie meal a day or five 400 calorie meals a day. The myth of 5 or 6 small meals a day to keep your metabolism running all day was proven completely false like almost a decade ago. It takes AT LEAST 72 hours of zero calorie intake for your metabolism to start changing or slowing down so don't listen to anybody who says meal timing or number of meals a day will affect your metabolism. Insulin spikes do not matter if you are eating at a deficit, or eating as maintenance because anything that gets stored as fat will be utilized later as fuel.

Care to provide citations about the insulin spikes? I've had to sit through training for dietary constraints and education for 3 different diabetics, my brother, my mom, and my dad. What you're saying is completely wrong based on how insulin works and how the glycemic index of foods operates. It also contradicts current medical science on diabetes.

Fat is not utilized as fuel during exercise so long as glycogen is available (free glucose stored in the liver and muscles), and you are rarely ever going to burn that much during casual exercise. Your body favors glycogen because it is significantly easier to metabolize than fat. That's why marathoners tend to not hit "the wall" until mile 20, when your body has to make the switch from burning glycogen over to burning fat.

diannethegeek

No one on here is going to tell you this is a good idea. You know better than that.

I always like it when people don't read the thread before posting.

Showcase_Brodown

From personal experience, my brother eats one meal a day and is very over weight.

Your brother eats at a caloric surplus.

When you are only eating once per day your metabolism is going to be slower...

Actually, to the contrary, your metabolism is ever so slightly higher during the first 36 hours of a fast.

The reason they say breakfast is so important is because it jump starts your metabolism for the day. Even having something as simple as a glass of milk in the morning can start up your metabolism.

Your metabolism never stopped and doesn't need to be jump-started.

Also if you eat smaller meals throughout the day it will make your metabolism faster as well.

No, it really doesn't work that way. Thermic effect is proportional to total calories. Given the same number of calories, meal frequency means jack.

Carbs are better earlier in the day because you will use it as energy.

Carbs are just as good at night or any other time of the day for the same reason.

LiftAllThePizzas

To the OP, I am 43 and 181-184 lbs and eat 2400+ calories to maintain. Going as low as 1000-1500 is not necessary and is going to leave you weak and/or hangry. You might try various foods that contain fiber and protein which will help you to not feel hungry. You might also consider getting into some form of resistance/strength training before you lose the weight because when you lose it by diet alone you tend to lose more muscle in the process. (And muscle takes longer to build than it does to lose.)

There is so much misinformation and bad advice in this thread, it's unbelievable. It makes no difference to your body composition whether you have one 2000 calorie meal a day or five 400 calorie meals a day. The myth of 5 or 6 small meals a day to keep your metabolism running all day was proven completely false like almost a decade ago. It takes AT LEAST 72 hours of zero calorie intake for your metabolism to start changing or slowing down so don't listen to anybody who says meal timing or number of meals a day will affect your metabolism. Insulin spikes do not matter if you are eating at a deficit, or eating as maintenance because anything that gets stored as fat will be utilized later as fuel.

Care to provide citations about the insulin spikes? I've had to sit through training for dietary constraints and education for 3 different diabetics, my brother, my mom, and my dad. What you're saying is completely wrong based on how insulin works and how the glycemic index of foods operates. It also contradicts current medical science on diabetes.

Fat is not utilized as fuel during exercise so long as glycogen is available (free glucose stored in the liver and muscles), and you are rarely ever going to burn that much during casual exercise. That's why marathoners tend to not hit "the wall" until mile 20, when your body has to make the switch from burning glycogen over to burning fat.

1- the OP is not diabetic.

2- When you're in a deficit, where is your body going to keep conjuring glycogen from? This has nothing to do with marathon runners because they don't eat a deficit before their run.

jonnythan

There is so much misinformation and bad advice in this thread, it's unbelievable. It makes no difference to your body composition whether you have one 2000 calorie meal a day or five 400 calorie meals a day. The myth of 5 or 6 small meals a day to keep your metabolism running all day was proven completely false like almost a decade ago. It takes AT LEAST 72 hours of zero calorie intake for your metabolism to start changing or slowing down so don't listen to anybody who says meal timing or number of meals a day will affect your metabolism. Insulin spikes do not matter if you are eating at a deficit, or eating as maintenance because anything that gets stored as fat will be utilized later as fuel.

Care to provide citations about the insulin spikes? I've had to sit through training for dietary constraints and education for 3 different diabetics, my brother, my mom, and my dad. What you're saying is completely wrong based on how insulin works and how the glycemic index of foods operates. It also contradicts current medical science on diabetes.

Fat is not utilized as fuel during exercise so long as glycogen is available (free glucose stored in the liver and muscles), and you are rarely ever going to burn that much during casual exercise. Your body favors glycogen because it is significantly easier to metabolize than fat. That's why marathoners tend to not hit "the wall" until mile 20, when your body has to make the switch from burning glycogen over to burning fat.

If you actually become diabetic, your body does not handle insulin properly anymore. Advice for a diabetic concerning insulin does not apply to someone who does not have the disease.

eazy_

I eat 1200 calories per day. I eat in a four hour window each day. I have done this since January.

AJ_G

Care to provide citations about the insulin spikes? I've had to sit through training for dietary constraints and education for 3 different diabetics, my brother, my mom, and my dad. What you're saying is completely wrong based on how insulin works and how the glycemic index of foods operates. It also contradicts current medical science on diabetes.

Fat is not utilized as fuel during exercise so long as glycogen is available (free glucose stored in the liver and muscles), and you are rarely ever going to burn that much during casual exercise. That's why marathoners tend to not hit "the wall" until mile 20, when your body has to make the switch from burning glycogen over to burning fat.

1- the OP is not diabetic.

2- When you're in a deficit, where is your body going to keep conjuring glycogen from? This has nothing to do with marathon runners because they don't eat a deficit before their run.

Thank you, 100% correct, OP is not diabetic, I never mentioned that this advice was for diabetics, of course if you are diabetic then yes you should worry about simple sugars, yes you should worry about insulin spikes, yes you should worry about your blood glucose level, but for the majority of the population, it does not matter.

Secondly, the glycemic index is a joke. The way they tested it is they fed people only that specific food by itself as a meal, and they were fed that food in a completely fasted state, and they monitored how it affected their blood glucose level. How often is this how you eat food? Do you not eat for 12 or 16 hours and then eat a meal of only white rice, for example, by itself? I know I sure don't. When high GI foods are consumed in a balanced meal with protein, which they usually are for most people, the effect of that food on blood glucose, and therefore on insulin spikes, and therefore on fat storage is almost negligible.

Also, right on about the glycogen. Stored fat is broken down to replenish glycogen, it doesn't come from thin air. Also, hitting the wall is referring to your body completely running out of glycogen stores and switching over to ketones from stored fat as the main source of fuel, which yes during a marathon would be very painful, but you do not have to completely deplete all your glycogen stores before your body replenishes them. It is true that glycogen is mainly used as a fuel during exercise, but when eating at a deficit, fat is broken down to restore the glycogen, that's the definition of a caloric deficit, you are burning more energy every day that you are taking in meaning that energy has to come from energy already stored in your body aka fat.

quitter1973

Thanks for all the advice- I've read some lean gains and thought that this was an okay method. I just want to hear from others on the IF bandwagon and how it was working for them.

Thanks again everyone.

LolBroScience

thread is full of broscience, lol. EAT HOWEVER MANY MEALS YOU WANT, it makes no difference as stated by everyone with above average physiques and strength in this thread.