Calorie Break Down by meal for weight loss???

dfwesq

heiliskrimsli wrote: »

funkyfunk25 wrote:

...Several studies have also shown that people who snack regularly eat less at mealtime."
...

The bolded part is the only operable part when it comes to weight loss. It's because they're eating less due to being less hungry at meals, and that results in a deficit.

Feeling more energized throughout the day might also play a role. If people are lethargic, their energy output often falls off, i.e., they sit more and move less. That might play some role too.

lemurcat12

SideSteel wrote: »

Others have already mentioned the metabolism thing being a myth but there's something else to consider.

My personal experience and professional experience have lead me to believe that MOST people will do better with fewer, larger meals compared to several smaller meals, largely due to satiety.

For sake of comparison lets take 1500 calories like this:

Breakfast: 400 calories

Lunch: 450 calories

Dinner: 650 calories


Compared to:

Meal 1: 200 cals
Meal 2: 250 cals
Meal 3: 300 cals
Meal 4: 250 cals
Meal 5: 300 cals
Meal 6: 200 cals


In the latter scenario, many people end up not achieving satiety at all. Additionally, I think some people get MORE food focused because they are eating so often that they end up thinking about food all day.

"Hey that light snack was almost fun. I'm not full. I'll sit here and think about the next meal I get in two hours".

I'm not sure this is a good thing.

Now I'll note, it IS personal preference and certainly there ARE people who do well on 6 meals per day.

But I suspect the majority are probably going to do well with 3-4 total feedings mainly for the above reasons.

I think it's going to be something on which people vary (like Side Steel says), but this was definitely true for me.

A bunch of little meals and I feel annoyed and never satisfied (and mostly cannot eat the kinds of things I want or have to carry leftovers around all the time). 3 larger meals or, if I am doing lots of hard cardio, 3 meals and a snack, work best for me.

When was I doing 1250 and not yet that active, I usually did:

250-300 breakfast (6 am)

400-450 lunch (12 pm)

whatever was left (450-600) for dinner (9 pm)

I'd vary it based on plans for the day.

When doing 1500-1600, I usually do:

400 breakfast

450-600 lunch

500-750 dinner

If I'm planning to go out to dinner (which for me is usually before the theater or a concert, so earlier than my usual dinner), I may skip or have a very light lunch.

lemurcat12

Also, for me snacking encourages a habit of me thinking about food and wanting to eat all the time. I do much better just not eating between meals unless there is a reason to. I believe (at least for me) that if you eat good filling meals there is no particular reason you will be hungry much before your planned meal time. But people differ so for them doing something else is better.

Lounmoun

You need to do what works for you and your life. Are you hungry at specific times? Do you want to eat with other people for certain meals? Do have time to spend preparing/eating many small meals or would it be easier to eat a couple of bigger meals?

I find it easier to eat a smaller breakfast and more of my calories later in the day. That is when I am hungrier and when I eat with other people. It is easier to eat the same as my family with 500 calories reserved for dinner.
I eat 1200-1400 calories without exercise. I break it down like this:
Breakfast 100-300 calories
Lunch 300-400 calories
Dinner around 500 calories
Snacks 100-300 calories

janejellyroll

SideSteel wrote: »

Others have already mentioned the metabolism thing being a myth but there's something else to consider.

My personal experience and professional experience have lead me to believe that MOST people will do better with fewer, larger meals compared to several smaller meals, largely due to satiety.

For sake of comparison lets take 1500 calories like this:

Breakfast: 400 calories

Lunch: 450 calories

Dinner: 650 calories


Compared to:

Meal 1: 200 cals
Meal 2: 250 cals
Meal 3: 300 cals
Meal 4: 250 cals
Meal 5: 300 cals
Meal 6: 200 cals


In the latter scenario, many people end up not achieving satiety at all. Additionally, I think some people get MORE food focused because they are eating so often that they end up thinking about food all day.

"Hey that light snack was almost fun. I'm not full. I'll sit here and think about the next meal I get in two hours".

I'm not sure this is a good thing.

Now I'll note, it IS personal preference and certainly there ARE people who do well on 6 meals per day.

But I suspect the majority are probably going to do well with 3-4 total feedings mainly for the above reasons.

This is absolutely true for me. When I have frequent meals, I feel like my entire day is about food and I'm never full. When I eat three meals, I get the sensation of fullness I like and it is also easier to plan to eat things that have more calories (for example, my lunch today is 500 calories and that would be more challenging to do if I was trying to eat six times a day).

heiliskrimsli

dfwesq wrote: »

heiliskrimsli wrote: »

funkyfunk25 wrote:

...Several studies have also shown that people who snack regularly eat less at mealtime."
...

The bolded part is the only operable part when it comes to weight loss. It's because they're eating less due to being less hungry at meals, and that results in a deficit.

Feeling more energized throughout the day might also play a role. If people are lethargic, their energy output often falls off, i.e., they sit more and move less. That might play some role too.

Unless you have a metabolic problem like diagnosed hypoglycemia or diabetes, do you really get lethargic from going five or six hours without food?

Humans evolved going longer than that between meals, and I can't even imagine feeling the need to eat every two hours.

gen39

More meals does not equal faster weight loss.

Some people are less hungry when they have multiple smaller meals. Others (looking at the intermittent fasting crowd) are less hungry when they have fewer but larger meals. Experiment.

crazyycatlady1

TavistockToad wrote: »

Division of calories doesn't matter for weight loss. Split them however you like.

This.

eta: agree completely with Sidesteel-I prefer a 2 meal/1 snack protocol (16:8IF). Right now I'm veering away from that, due to experimenting with a more whole foods, plant based diet (with a big focus on quantity of veg/fruit), but it's annoying for me to have to eat in the morning and add in an extra snack

Today's breakdown-

breakfast (blech)-244c
lunch-550c-ish (have to weight out veggies yet for exact count)
snack #1- 68c
supper-303c
snack #2 90c

BLawyered

Thank you all for the insight, conversation, and debate. I appreciate the personal experiences and posts with references a lot.

junodog1

I set myself up for three meals a day, but I often eat the foods set up as breakfast or lunch over several hours.
Especially lunch, if I am sitting in the office and I am satiated from a salad or sandwich, I will leave my other foods to sit until I feel a little hungry (or bored TBH.) A typical lunch: salad, fruit, cottage cheese or yogurt. **

The salad is usually a 'traditional' salad with the plus of avocado and/or protein and/or savory like olives.

Around 2 pm I may eat a yogurt, then later the fruit or I may not. But I bring the food and it is prelogged. If I don't eat it then I delete it and there is more for me at dinner or maybe dessert or adult beverage.


** I eat these foods because I like them, not because they are diet foods.