2 Meals a day?
Options
natajane
Posts: 295 Member
Hello!
I'm going to switch my diet from 3 meals a day and a snack, to 2 meals a day and a snack.
Going to drop my evening meal - it's 8pm most work nights when I get to eat. My body doesn't want to eat that late, my sleep suffers for it I'm sure. So I'm going to listen to myself and swap that meal for a piece of fruit.
Then in weekends I'm going to have brunch and an earlier dinner. Again that's how I "want" to eat, just all these years I've been trying to eat how I think I "should" eat.
Interested to know though if anyone else does this too? How do you find it?
Does it help weight loss? I'm hoping it might for me. I ate what I wanted, within reason for a normal day, and I've just added it up and my calories came right on track. Was surprised!
I'm going to switch my diet from 3 meals a day and a snack, to 2 meals a day and a snack.
Going to drop my evening meal - it's 8pm most work nights when I get to eat. My body doesn't want to eat that late, my sleep suffers for it I'm sure. So I'm going to listen to myself and swap that meal for a piece of fruit.
Then in weekends I'm going to have brunch and an earlier dinner. Again that's how I "want" to eat, just all these years I've been trying to eat how I think I "should" eat.
Interested to know though if anyone else does this too? How do you find it?
Does it help weight loss? I'm hoping it might for me. I ate what I wanted, within reason for a normal day, and I've just added it up and my calories came right on track. Was surprised!
3
Replies
-
Do what your body wants. If it isn't hungry, do not eat. Simple. When first starting this, I struggled with that concept and made myself physically sick. From that point, I chose not to just eat healthy foods. At the amount of calories and my lifestyle, I can't stick to the recommended calories with simple, healthy foods. I had to indulge. And that helped with my binge eating.
At the end of the day, you will know your body better than anyone on this forum.1 -
If it works for you, do it.
Some of this is only in the labelling anyway - you could say you are eating 2 meals and a snack or 3 meals with one of them being much smaller than the others.
3 -
Listen to yourself! By the way, you'll be eating three meals a day which is completely normal/ordinary.
Eating in a way that feels easy and natural doesn't "help weight loss"; only adhering to calorie deficit "helps weight loss". But eating in a way that feels easy and natural helps you adhere to a calorie deficit.
I have followed many different meal setups; the main point for me is to choose food I want to eat, not number of meals. Now I'm eating three meals (four, if I'm hungry) and not all the time, and that feels so uncomplicated and tidy and grownup. Just good. Right.
1 -
physiquelore wrote: »I am against something like this for a few reasons.
Consuming larger meals leads to bad eating habits, for many binging,.
People get fat due to an over consumption of calories/food. Having higher calorie meals just reinforces these bad habits. There are many accounts of people who do this style of eating who end up binging.
" when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/
I know you're not consuming 1 meal a day, but the point still stands. Consuming larger meals for the same calorie content affects the things mentioned in the quote above.
As pointed out in the other thread ( http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10517331/keto-omad-the-best-weight-loss-marriage#latest ) you posted this link on:
It's a pilot study with 15 participants but if we are to draw conclusions...- subjects had a significant increase in hunger - NEGATIVE
- a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass - POSITIVE (since participants maintained weight and therefore increased LBM)
- significant increases in blood pressure - NEGATIVE (although researchers do point out that it may be due to circadian rhythm since animal studies have shown the opposite effect)
- and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations - Generally considered to be NEGATIVE but, to be expected if participants losing fat?
- significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol - POSITIVE
"In conclusion, altered meal frequency is feasible in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged men and women. Consumption of 1 meal/d resulted in weight loss and a decrease in fat mass with little modification in calorie consumption. It remains unclear whether altered meal frequency would lead to changes in weight and body composition in obese subjects."3 -
Thanks for your comments, interesting to see everyone's views.
Yeah I guess I am switching the evening meal for the yoghurt and fruit, making it smaller.
I'm not planning on increasing the other meal sizes generally, yesterday my breakfast was slightly different - swapped cereal for whole meal toast with poached eggs and mushrooms - but my lunch was the same. It felt "right" like I was satisfying what I needed.
I'll be interested to see what happens to my hunger hormones for sure. Right now I don't think they're working, I never really feel hungry or full.
Just had a look for some research - didn't realise this was a thing, and I found this article:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/09/21/intermittent-fasting-calorie-restriction.aspx
That insulin resistance bit is really interesting to me because I hold a lot of weight in my middle and my father is diabetic. It explains why I feel like I sleep badly by eating late as well.
Mmm, could be an interesting couple of weeks while I try it out! Think I'm going to aim to do this for 2 weeks and reassess. If I have days where I want more dinner I'll have it, but I'll load it with veg and aim to stop eating before 5pm.
I'll let you know how it goes!0 -
Hunger hormones are overrated. In our modern Western world, eating every day, and some of us, all the time, we never get to a point where we are hungry, and we certainly don't have to eat enough to last us several days in one sitting, because there's food around us all the time. You don't have to feel hungry and full, you just have to eat enough but not too much.I'll be interested to see what happens to my hunger hormones for sure. Right now I don't think they're working, I never really feel hungry or full.2 -
Your stomach will not say you "thanks" after that. That volume of food will become a huge workload for it.0
-
physiquelore wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »I am against something like this for a few reasons.
Consuming larger meals leads to bad eating habits, for many binging,.
People get fat due to an over consumption of calories/food. Having higher calorie meals just reinforces these bad habits. There are many accounts of people who do this style of eating who end up binging.
" when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/
I know you're not consuming 1 meal a day, but the point still stands. Consuming larger meals for the same calorie content affects the things mentioned in the quote above.
As pointed out in the other thread ( http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10517331/keto-omad-the-best-weight-loss-marriage#latest ) you posted this link on:
It's a pilot study with 15 participants but if we are to draw conclusions...- subjects had a significant increase in hunger - NEGATIVE
- a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass - POSITIVE (since participants maintained weight and therefore increased LBM)
- significant increases in blood pressure - NEGATIVE (although researchers do point out that it may be due to circadian rhythm since animal studies have shown the opposite effect)
- and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations - Generally considered to be NEGATIVE but, to be expected if participants losing fat?
- significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol - POSITIVE
"In conclusion, altered meal frequency is feasible in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged men and women. Consumption of 1 meal/d resulted in weight loss and a decrease in fat mass with little modification in calorie consumption. It remains unclear whether altered meal frequency would lead to changes in weight and body composition in obese subjects."
Since my main focus was on hunger, I do not know how you're getting a negative.
"There was a significant treatment effect between the 2 diets on ratings of hunger, desire to eat, fullness, and prospective consumption (ie, the amount of food subjects thought they could eat). The 1 meal/d diet was significantly higher for hunger (P = 0.003), desire to eat (P = 0.004), and prospective consumption (P = 0.006) than was the 3 meals/d diet. Feelings of fullness were significantly (P = 0.001) lower in the 1 meal/d than in the 3 meals/d diet"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/
I am saying that a significant increase in hunger is seen by most people as a negative - I'm agreeing with you.
Where I am disagreeing with you, is that you seem to be citing that study as an example of how bad fasting is but the study showed some positive outcomes, not least a reduction in body fat whilst increasing lean body mass, and the researchers, in their summary indicated that altered meal frequency is feasible in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged men and women.0 -
Personal preference.1
-
Follow your natural hunger patterns.
My natural hunger patterns have me eating 2 meals and 2 snacks. Do what works for you and ignore the naysayer.3 -
physiquelore wrote: »
I do not disagree that positive outcomes were obtained. But keep in mind this is controlled. When people are hungry they eat more calories. I said it a few times, not sure exactly where, but I have stated "The people I have seen successful on IF long-term(2+ years) are usually people who were not that overweight, to begin with. Most not even overweight."StealthHealth wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »I am against something like this for a few reasons.
Consuming larger meals leads to bad eating habits, for many binging,.
People get fat due to an over consumption of calories/food. Having higher calorie meals just reinforces these bad habits. There are many accounts of people who do this style of eating who end up binging.
" when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/
I know you're not consuming 1 meal a day, but the point still stands. Consuming larger meals for the same calorie content affects the things mentioned in the quote above.
As pointed out in the other thread ( http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10517331/keto-omad-the-best-weight-loss-marriage#latest ) you posted this link on:
It's a pilot study with 15 participants but if we are to draw conclusions...- subjects had a significant increase in hunger - NEGATIVE
- a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass - POSITIVE (since participants maintained weight and therefore increased LBM)
- significant increases in blood pressure - NEGATIVE (although researchers do point out that it may be due to circadian rhythm since animal studies have shown the opposite effect)
- and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations - Generally considered to be NEGATIVE but, to be expected if participants losing fat?
- significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol - POSITIVE
"In conclusion, altered meal frequency is feasible in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged men and women. Consumption of 1 meal/d resulted in weight loss and a decrease in fat mass with little modification in calorie consumption. It remains unclear whether altered meal frequency would lead to changes in weight and body composition in obese subjects."
Since my main focus was on hunger, I do not know how you're getting a negative.
"There was a significant treatment effect between the 2 diets on ratings of hunger, desire to eat, fullness, and prospective consumption (ie, the amount of food subjects thought they could eat). The 1 meal/d diet was significantly higher for hunger (P = 0.003), desire to eat (P = 0.004), and prospective consumption (P = 0.006) than was the 3 meals/d diet. Feelings of fullness were significantly (P = 0.001) lower in the 1 meal/d than in the 3 meals/d diet"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/
I am saying that a significant increase in hunger is seen by most people as a negative - I'm agreeing with you.
Where I am disagreeing with you, is that you seem to be citing that study as an example of how bad fasting is but the study showed some positive outcomes, not least a reduction in body fat whilst increasing lean body mass, and the researchers, in their summary indicated that altered meal frequency is feasible in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged men and women.
We're discussing the same thing in 2 different threads. I will just reply to the original discussion we're having in the other thread. If anyone wants to read it here is the link
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/38925695#Comment_38925695
Did you miss the point that the original poster in this thread was following her natural hunger patterns?
Not everyone fits into the same box.
4 -
kiyorasetsuna3 wrote: »Your stomach will not say you "thanks" after that. That volume of food will become a huge workload for it.
Really????
I don't follow this every day - on work days I eat breakfast, lunch, dinner with generally a mid morning snack and an evening snack ( or supper, if you like)
But on weekend I often just have brunch, dinner, small evening snack - which is basically what OP is planning.
No, my stomach does not have huge workload from this.
4 -
physiquelore wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »
I do not disagree that positive outcomes were obtained. But keep in mind this is controlled. When people are hungry they eat more calories. I said it a few times, not sure exactly where, but I have stated "The people I have seen successful on IF long-term(2+ years) are usually people who were not that overweight, to begin with. Most not even overweight."StealthHealth wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »I am against something like this for a few reasons.
Consuming larger meals leads to bad eating habits, for many binging,.
People get fat due to an over consumption of calories/food. Having higher calorie meals just reinforces these bad habits. There are many accounts of people who do this style of eating who end up binging.
" when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/
I know you're not consuming 1 meal a day, but the point still stands. Consuming larger meals for the same calorie content affects the things mentioned in the quote above.
As pointed out in the other thread ( http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10517331/keto-omad-the-best-weight-loss-marriage#latest ) you posted this link on:
It's a pilot study with 15 participants but if we are to draw conclusions...- subjects had a significant increase in hunger - NEGATIVE
- a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass - POSITIVE (since participants maintained weight and therefore increased LBM)
- significant increases in blood pressure - NEGATIVE (although researchers do point out that it may be due to circadian rhythm since animal studies have shown the opposite effect)
- and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations - Generally considered to be NEGATIVE but, to be expected if participants losing fat?
- significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol - POSITIVE
"In conclusion, altered meal frequency is feasible in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged men and women. Consumption of 1 meal/d resulted in weight loss and a decrease in fat mass with little modification in calorie consumption. It remains unclear whether altered meal frequency would lead to changes in weight and body composition in obese subjects."
Since my main focus was on hunger, I do not know how you're getting a negative.
"There was a significant treatment effect between the 2 diets on ratings of hunger, desire to eat, fullness, and prospective consumption (ie, the amount of food subjects thought they could eat). The 1 meal/d diet was significantly higher for hunger (P = 0.003), desire to eat (P = 0.004), and prospective consumption (P = 0.006) than was the 3 meals/d diet. Feelings of fullness were significantly (P = 0.001) lower in the 1 meal/d than in the 3 meals/d diet"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/
I am saying that a significant increase in hunger is seen by most people as a negative - I'm agreeing with you.
Where I am disagreeing with you, is that you seem to be citing that study as an example of how bad fasting is but the study showed some positive outcomes, not least a reduction in body fat whilst increasing lean body mass, and the researchers, in their summary indicated that altered meal frequency is feasible in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged men and women.
We're discussing the same thing in 2 different threads. I will just reply to the original discussion we're having in the other thread. If anyone wants to read it here is the link
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/38925695#Comment_38925695
Did you miss the point that the original poster in this thread was following her natural hunger patterns?
Not everyone fits into the same box.
She asked for an opinion on the topic. Which i gave. She followed her "natural hunger pattern" for 1 day... really does not mean anything.
She said it's how she "wants" to eat as opposed to how she thinks she "should" eat (which is what she's been doing.
Also, you know what they say about opinions.3 -
physiquelore wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »
I do not disagree that positive outcomes were obtained. But keep in mind this is controlled. When people are hungry they eat more calories. I said it a few times, not sure exactly where, but I have stated "The people I have seen successful on IF long-term(2+ years) are usually people who were not that overweight, to begin with. Most not even overweight."StealthHealth wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »I am against something like this for a few reasons.
Consuming larger meals leads to bad eating habits, for many binging,.
People get fat due to an over consumption of calories/food. Having higher calorie meals just reinforces these bad habits. There are many accounts of people who do this style of eating who end up binging.
" when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/
I know you're not consuming 1 meal a day, but the point still stands. Consuming larger meals for the same calorie content affects the things mentioned in the quote above.
As pointed out in the other thread ( http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10517331/keto-omad-the-best-weight-loss-marriage#latest ) you posted this link on:
It's a pilot study with 15 participants but if we are to draw conclusions...- subjects had a significant increase in hunger - NEGATIVE
- a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass - POSITIVE (since participants maintained weight and therefore increased LBM)
- significant increases in blood pressure - NEGATIVE (although researchers do point out that it may be due to circadian rhythm since animal studies have shown the opposite effect)
- and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations - Generally considered to be NEGATIVE but, to be expected if participants losing fat?
- significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol - POSITIVE
"In conclusion, altered meal frequency is feasible in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged men and women. Consumption of 1 meal/d resulted in weight loss and a decrease in fat mass with little modification in calorie consumption. It remains unclear whether altered meal frequency would lead to changes in weight and body composition in obese subjects."
Since my main focus was on hunger, I do not know how you're getting a negative.
"There was a significant treatment effect between the 2 diets on ratings of hunger, desire to eat, fullness, and prospective consumption (ie, the amount of food subjects thought they could eat). The 1 meal/d diet was significantly higher for hunger (P = 0.003), desire to eat (P = 0.004), and prospective consumption (P = 0.006) than was the 3 meals/d diet. Feelings of fullness were significantly (P = 0.001) lower in the 1 meal/d than in the 3 meals/d diet"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/
I am saying that a significant increase in hunger is seen by most people as a negative - I'm agreeing with you.
Where I am disagreeing with you, is that you seem to be citing that study as an example of how bad fasting is but the study showed some positive outcomes, not least a reduction in body fat whilst increasing lean body mass, and the researchers, in their summary indicated that altered meal frequency is feasible in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged men and women.
We're discussing the same thing in 2 different threads. I will just reply to the original discussion we're having in the other thread. If anyone wants to read it here is the link
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/38925695#Comment_38925695
Did you miss the point that the original poster in this thread was following her natural hunger patterns?
Not everyone fits into the same box.
She asked for an opinion on the topic. Which i gave. She followed her "natural hunger pattern" for 1 day... really does not mean anything.
My natural hunger pattern is pretty much consistent, I've noticed it over a long period of time of a few years. Some days I'm all for an evening meal, but most of the time actually I'm just not.
Just to mention again that I'm not planning on "gorging" during my 2 meals either. Just normal balanced meals. If I feel hungry, I will go with it and have a healthy snack or increase the veg at my next meal.
I have kind of sorted through most of my emotional and mental issues with food these days, I'm trying to explore now what my body is asking after, rather than bumping my head against what I've learnt about diet and eating and what I "should" do. I'm not even going to punish myself if one day is different to another. Just wondered if anyone else has done the same.
1 -
I believe it comes down to personal preference.
I tend to eat a late breakfast (around 11am) as I'm just not hungry in the mornings, then dinner at around 7.30 in the evening. I eat a predominantly LCFH diet so I'm fairly fat and protein heavy which possibly helps me avoid hunger. If I am hungry I'll grab a snack, I'm not overly regimented about it.
I've found that 2 satisfying meals, eaten when I'm hungry, has helped me keep my calories on track, rather than eating when I thought I should and trying to make the calories fit into a timetable that wasn't working with my body.
Hope you find what works for you.0 -
I'm in the 'do what works for you' camp. I eat when I'm hungry. It's anywhere from 6 snacks a day and no meals or 2 meals a day - completely depends on the time of the month. Sometimes I have breakfast at 5am and lunch at 10.30am, sometimes it's 11am/4pm, sometimes I just skip breakfast or dinner. I just follow my hunger patterns (which is really annoying when you're supposed to have 'social' meals, but it is what it is).
The days I'm more likely to overeat are when I'm expected to have a meal at a certain time.0 -
Do it!
I do the opposite, eat a small meal in the afternoon and a large meal at night because that's what feels natural to me. I think listening to your body is important. Do what works for you!0 -
I generally have one larger meal, either late lunch/early dinner, with enough volume that I don't need anything more than a snack or smaller meal. On workout days I'll have a carby but low calorie breakfast. But there are other days when I'll have a huge breakfast and again not be hungry at all all day. A well balanced meal with reasonable volume is more important for me I think, than timing.
It's really a matter of finding a way that feels natural and unforced and of course you can always change if you don't like it!0 -
You should do what works for you!
As a teenager, I followed IF without even knowing it: I had breakfast, a morning snack, lunch, afternoon snack and then no dinner. It worked for my schedule ( I had school from 8 a.m. to 1 or 2 pm and I was sedentary in the afternoon) and I was at my lowest weight ever.
I was just used to go to bed slightly hungry and wake up starving.
I am actually considering to go back to something similar because when I have a small lunch I just keep snacking all the time and I am more likely to over eat compared to when I have a big lunch and just forget about food until late afternoon.
If it works for your weightloss and you don't feel deprived, go for it!0 -
Try it and see if it works for you. I don't eat breakfast, and stick to lunch and dinner with a snack and it helps me stay within calorie goal. I know some people swear by eating breakfast, but I'm just not hungry until around 11 AM. If eating earlier in the day is what your body naturally prefers, then roll with it.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions