Been eating less than 2,000 calories a day for a week and gained weight
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Everyone keeps talking sodium, sodium, sodium. Some people can eat a weeks worth of salt in a day and not gain water weight. It varies by the individual. The OP is probably gaining weight because he is not being honest with his diet descriptions, or is being exceedingly inaccurate with his calorie values.
They can eat that much salt and not gain weight if they happen to drink a ton of water that day as well sure, but if their sodium intake goes up but their water intake does not then they will retain more water and they will gain weight. That isn't determined at an individual level that is just physics. Your body keeps your sodium concentration at the same level, if you take in sodium you need to have water to dilute it to the appropriate level. If you drink more water you can use that water to flush out some of the sodium to return to your appropriate level but if you don't then your body will retain as much water as it can in order to keep the concentration where it should be. It doesn't matter who you are.
If only someone had written and posted a scientific look at this question.
Oh look here's one.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10615700/biochemistry-answers-for-common-weight-loss-questions-sodium-warning-long-and-nerdy
6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
I've literally made the same big meal, separated it out in to 5 meals and ate it throughout the day.. versus eating the whole thing at night. The weight lost difference was significant for me despite eating the exact same thing. (Again, half a pound a week versus 2-2.5 pounds a week).19 -
stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
Your metabolism is burning 24/710 -
There's been research on why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals. If you eat once a day, your body goes into high gear for a few hours then goes into low gear for the rest of the day.
Can you provide links to this research?
Here are some good ones:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-eating-at-night-make-it-more-likely-to-gain-weight/
https://examine.com/nutrition/do-i-need-to-eat-six-times-a-day-to-keep-my-metabolism-high/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3374835/
6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
Actually, you're exactly wrong.
IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.
If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »laurenebargar wrote: »Everyone keeps talking sodium, sodium, sodium. Some people can eat a weeks worth of salt in a day and not gain water weight. It varies by the individual. The OP is probably gaining weight because he is not being honest with his diet descriptions, or is being exceedingly inaccurate with his calorie values.
That is probably a part of it, however I think a vast majority of people do gain water weight from high sodium meals.
vast majority = everyone because osmolarity and physics.
Yeah I see your previous post, much better explained than mine lol0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
I've literally made the same big meal, separated it out in to 5 meals and ate it throughout the day.. versus eating the whole thing at night. The weight lost difference was significant for me despite eating the exact same thing. (Again, half a pound a week versus 2-2.5 pounds a week).
Metabolic rate is unaffected by meals. Your bodies metabolism basically idles to maintain your body temperature constantly throughout the day and night 24/7. If you exercise and recruit muscles that use energy then your metabolism will increase to supply that energy. With metabolism comes heat so you tend to overheat which is compensated for by sweating. When you are not exercising metabolism continues at a rate necessary to maintain your body temperature.
Eating will trigger digestion of the food into storage molecules and stored energy a process that is also called metabolism (hence your confusion), it doesn't however affect metabolic rate of those stored molecules for the release of energy which is what actually matters here. You don't suddenly start to perspire uncontrollably everytime you eat. If you do perspire uncontrollably everytime you eat you should probably have a doctor look into that.9 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
Actually, you're exactly wrong.
IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.
If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.
Yup, I'm wrong.
5 years ago, I just made the same exact meal for about 2 months straight and ate it all at once right before bed and I lost only 7 pounds. Then I started making the same exact meal but separating it out to 5 small bowls and eating it throughout the day. The result was 32 pounds in roughly 2 months.
I asked my doctor why that is, and he said the same thing. Some people need regular frequent meals or their bodies slow down and don't get rid of fat as fast.
I'll keep doing what works for my body. I've been dieting again for almost 2 months now, and it's been a near steady 2.5 pounds/week.
14 -
stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
I've literally made the same big meal, separated it out in to 5 meals and ate it throughout the day.. versus eating the whole thing at night. The weight lost difference was significant for me despite eating the exact same thing. (Again, half a pound a week versus 2-2.5 pounds a week).
Wait, you made the exact same big meal and separated it into 5 meals for a substantial period of time, documented the results, and then switched to eating the exact same food/amount of food in one meal for another substantial period of time and documented those results?
How long did you spend on each plan?
Edit: I see you ate the exact same quantity of the exact same foods for four months straight. Why did you choose to do that?6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
Actually, you're exactly wrong.
IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.
If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.
Yup, I'm wrong.
5 years ago, I just made the same meal for about 2 months straight and ate it all at once right before bed and I lost 7 pounds in about 2 months. Then I started making he same exact meal but separating it out to 5 small bowls and eating it throughout the day. The result was 32 pounds in roughly 2 months.
I asked my doctor why that is, and he said the same thing. Some people need regular meals or their bodies just slow down and doesn't get rid of fat as fast.
I'll keep doing what works for my body, but thanks.
Personal anecdote doesn't override reality. I would consider it much more likely that your story is oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy than the idea that all we understand about biology and physiology is wrong. If your doctor said what you said they said then they are wrong. I think it more likely that what the doctor meant is the true statement that if you spread your meals out over the course of a day instead of clustering them into just one or two meals the majority of people find that more satiating which will allow them to eat less to feel the same amount of full.
If this is a direct quote "Some people need regular meals or their bodies just slow down and doesn't get rid of fat as fast" and that is word for word what your doctor said then your doctor has no idea what they are talking about. I think it is more likely that that is your interpretation of what your doctor told you, not what your doctor meant.
If your body actually "slowed down" its basal metabolic rate then your body temperature would drop. Did your body temperature drop?12 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
Actually, you're exactly wrong.
IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.
If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.
Yup, I'm wrong.
5 years ago, I just made the same exact meal for about 2 months straight and ate it all at once right before bed and I lost only 7 pounds. Then I started making the same exact meal but separating it out to 5 small bowls and eating it throughout the day. The result was 32 pounds in roughly 2 months.
I asked my doctor why that is, and he said the same thing. Some people need regular frequent meals or their bodies slow down and don't get rid of fat as fast.
I'll keep doing what works for my body. I've been dieting again for almost 2 months now, and it's been a near steady 2.5 pounds/week.
How did you measure your activity during this period?3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
I've literally made the same big meal, separated it out in to 5 meals and ate it throughout the day.. versus eating the whole thing at night. The weight lost difference was significant for me despite eating the exact same thing. (Again, half a pound a week versus 2-2.5 pounds a week).
Wait, you made the exact same big meal and separated it into 5 meals for a substantial period of time, documented the results, and then switched to eating the exact same food/amount of food in one meal for another substantial period of time and documented those results?
How long did you spend on each plan?
Edit: I see you ate the exact same quantity of the exact same foods for four months straight. Why did you choose to do that?
About 2 months doing 1 big meal versus 5 small meals. Same food quantities each day. It made a significant difference for me. People can tell me I'm wrong, but I really don't care. I was the one seeing the results!
To answer your edit, I was super lazy back then. I found it easier to just make a week worth of meals in advance and put them in containers.janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
Actually, you're exactly wrong.
IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.
If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.
Yup, I'm wrong.
5 years ago, I just made the same exact meal for about 2 months straight and ate it all at once right before bed and I lost only 7 pounds. Then I started making the same exact meal but separating it out to 5 small bowls and eating it throughout the day. The result was 32 pounds in roughly 2 months.
I asked my doctor why that is, and he said the same thing. Some people need regular frequent meals or their bodies slow down and don't get rid of fat as fast.
I'll keep doing what works for my body. I've been dieting again for almost 2 months now, and it's been a near steady 2.5 pounds/week.
How did you measure your activity during this period?
0 exercise, wake up, sit in a chair 15 hours straight. I was super lazy, had no job and played games all day every day.7 -
You must have reached a plateau in your weight descent. Obviously, your body no longer needs 2000 calories a day to maintain the same weight. Just stay on the track you're on and you'll bulk up to where 2,000 is once again a weight losing number.
You know that food is just fuel right. If you give a car too much fuel when filling the tank or starting the car you get a different, but negative result.
The quantities you are eating at one sitting are probably not helping either. If Wendy's is your only choice, then spread the meals out over the day. Take half your meal home and have it for brekkies and lunch the next day.
And please eat an apple and something green. How about a nice piece of broccoli :-)1 -
Can you cite the research you mentioned? Interested in reading it.
3 -
Also, I just realized that you could simply be constipated. All those processed carbs and meat fats have got to be clogging up your colon. If you ate a dish of prunes, you'd probably lose 5 pounds at the throne.
5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
I've literally made the same big meal, separated it out in to 5 meals and ate it throughout the day.. versus eating the whole thing at night. The weight lost difference was significant for me despite eating the exact same thing. (Again, half a pound a week versus 2-2.5 pounds a week).
Wait, you made the exact same big meal and separated it into 5 meals for a substantial period of time, documented the results, and then switched to eating the exact same food/amount of food in one meal for another substantial period of time and documented those results?
How long did you spend on each plan?
Edit: I see you ate the exact same quantity of the exact same foods for four months straight. Why did you choose to do that?
About 2 months doing 1 big meal versus 5 small meals. Same food quantities each day. It made a significant difference for me. People can tell me I'm wrong, but I really don't care. I was the one seeing the results!
To answer your edit, I was super lazy back then. I found it easier to just make a week worth of meals in advance and put them in containers.janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
Actually, you're exactly wrong.
IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.
If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.
Yup, I'm wrong.
5 years ago, I just made the same exact meal for about 2 months straight and ate it all at once right before bed and I lost only 7 pounds. Then I started making the same exact meal but separating it out to 5 small bowls and eating it throughout the day. The result was 32 pounds in roughly 2 months.
I asked my doctor why that is, and he said the same thing. Some people need regular frequent meals or their bodies slow down and don't get rid of fat as fast.
I'll keep doing what works for my body. I've been dieting again for almost 2 months now, and it's been a near steady 2.5 pounds/week.
How did you measure your activity during this period?
0 exercise, wake up, sit in a chair 15 hours straight. I was super lazy, had no job and played games all day every day.
Nobody is saying that you shouldn't do what you prefer or what you've had results with, they're just questioning your statements of fact. Your personal (unverified) results aside, I'm not aware of any reliable evidence that eating multiple meals allows one to burn more calories than eating fewer meals.
It doesn't sound like you were measuring your activity in any reliable way. Even people who don't have jobs sometimes engage in activities like grocery shopping, visiting a friend, or just going outside.
Were you using a food scale to measure your portions or were you just counting on the fact that you were making the same meal meant that you were eating the same amount of calories each day?9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
I've literally made the same big meal, separated it out in to 5 meals and ate it throughout the day.. versus eating the whole thing at night. The weight lost difference was significant for me despite eating the exact same thing. (Again, half a pound a week versus 2-2.5 pounds a week).
Wait, you made the exact same big meal and separated it into 5 meals for a substantial period of time, documented the results, and then switched to eating the exact same food/amount of food in one meal for another substantial period of time and documented those results?
How long did you spend on each plan?
Edit: I see you ate the exact same quantity of the exact same foods for four months straight. Why did you choose to do that?
About 2 months doing 1 big meal versus 5 small meals. Same food quantities each day. It made a significant difference for me. People can tell me I'm wrong, but I really don't care. I was the one seeing the results!
To answer your edit, I was super lazy back then. I found it easier to just make a week worth of meals in advance and put them in containers.janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
Actually, you're exactly wrong.
IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.
If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.
Yup, I'm wrong.
5 years ago, I just made the same exact meal for about 2 months straight and ate it all at once right before bed and I lost only 7 pounds. Then I started making the same exact meal but separating it out to 5 small bowls and eating it throughout the day. The result was 32 pounds in roughly 2 months.
I asked my doctor why that is, and he said the same thing. Some people need regular frequent meals or their bodies slow down and don't get rid of fat as fast.
I'll keep doing what works for my body. I've been dieting again for almost 2 months now, and it's been a near steady 2.5 pounds/week.
How did you measure your activity during this period?
0 exercise, wake up, sit in a chair 15 hours straight. I was super lazy, had no job and played games all day every day.
If you don't care what other people think then maybe stop trying to give them advice.11 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Can you cite the research you mentioned? Interested in reading it.
Your guess would be as good as mine. I read about it 5 something years ago when my "1 big meal a day" diet wasn't working as well as I hoped, made the switch and always thought it was a miracle worker since the pounds started flying off. When I asked my doctor about it, he told me it was better to eat small meals over 1 big meal, so I always assumed that's what caused it.
I won't throw out the fact it could have just been sheer luck that my body decided to start losing weight significantly faster the same time I made the change, but personally I prefer 5 small meals a day so I don't feel like changing it up just to test that theory.
Aaron_K123 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
I've literally made the same big meal, separated it out in to 5 meals and ate it throughout the day.. versus eating the whole thing at night. The weight lost difference was significant for me despite eating the exact same thing. (Again, half a pound a week versus 2-2.5 pounds a week).
Wait, you made the exact same big meal and separated it into 5 meals for a substantial period of time, documented the results, and then switched to eating the exact same food/amount of food in one meal for another substantial period of time and documented those results?
How long did you spend on each plan?
Edit: I see you ate the exact same quantity of the exact same foods for four months straight. Why did you choose to do that?
About 2 months doing 1 big meal versus 5 small meals. Same food quantities each day. It made a significant difference for me. People can tell me I'm wrong, but I really don't care. I was the one seeing the results!
To answer your edit, I was super lazy back then. I found it easier to just make a week worth of meals in advance and put them in containers.janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
Actually, you're exactly wrong.
IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.
If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.
Yup, I'm wrong.
5 years ago, I just made the same exact meal for about 2 months straight and ate it all at once right before bed and I lost only 7 pounds. Then I started making the same exact meal but separating it out to 5 small bowls and eating it throughout the day. The result was 32 pounds in roughly 2 months.
I asked my doctor why that is, and he said the same thing. Some people need regular frequent meals or their bodies slow down and don't get rid of fat as fast.
I'll keep doing what works for my body. I've been dieting again for almost 2 months now, and it's been a near steady 2.5 pounds/week.
How did you measure your activity during this period?
0 exercise, wake up, sit in a chair 15 hours straight. I was super lazy, had no job and played games all day every day.
If you don't care what other people think then maybe stop trying to give them advice.
How does that make any sense? How is giving advice and caring what other people think the same thing at all?Aaron_K123 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
I've literally made the same big meal, separated it out in to 5 meals and ate it throughout the day.. versus eating the whole thing at night. The weight lost difference was significant for me despite eating the exact same thing. (Again, half a pound a week versus 2-2.5 pounds a week).
Wait, you made the exact same big meal and separated it into 5 meals for a substantial period of time, documented the results, and then switched to eating the exact same food/amount of food in one meal for another substantial period of time and documented those results?
How long did you spend on each plan?
Edit: I see you ate the exact same quantity of the exact same foods for four months straight. Why did you choose to do that?
About 2 months doing 1 big meal versus 5 small meals. Same food quantities each day. It made a significant difference for me. People can tell me I'm wrong, but I really don't care. I was the one seeing the results!
To answer your edit, I was super lazy back then. I found it easier to just make a week worth of meals in advance and put them in containers.janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
Actually, you're exactly wrong.
IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.
If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.
Yup, I'm wrong.
5 years ago, I just made the same exact meal for about 2 months straight and ate it all at once right before bed and I lost only 7 pounds. Then I started making the same exact meal but separating it out to 5 small bowls and eating it throughout the day. The result was 32 pounds in roughly 2 months.
I asked my doctor why that is, and he said the same thing. Some people need regular frequent meals or their bodies slow down and don't get rid of fat as fast.
I'll keep doing what works for my body. I've been dieting again for almost 2 months now, and it's been a near steady 2.5 pounds/week.
How did you measure your activity during this period?
0 exercise, wake up, sit in a chair 15 hours straight. I was super lazy, had no job and played games all day every day.
If you don't care what other people think then maybe stop trying to give them advice.janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
I've literally made the same big meal, separated it out in to 5 meals and ate it throughout the day.. versus eating the whole thing at night. The weight lost difference was significant for me despite eating the exact same thing. (Again, half a pound a week versus 2-2.5 pounds a week).
Wait, you made the exact same big meal and separated it into 5 meals for a substantial period of time, documented the results, and then switched to eating the exact same food/amount of food in one meal for another substantial period of time and documented those results?
How long did you spend on each plan?
Edit: I see you ate the exact same quantity of the exact same foods for four months straight. Why did you choose to do that?
About 2 months doing 1 big meal versus 5 small meals. Same food quantities each day. It made a significant difference for me. People can tell me I'm wrong, but I really don't care. I was the one seeing the results!
To answer your edit, I was super lazy back then. I found it easier to just make a week worth of meals in advance and put them in containers.janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
Actually, you're exactly wrong.
IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.
If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.
Yup, I'm wrong.
5 years ago, I just made the same exact meal for about 2 months straight and ate it all at once right before bed and I lost only 7 pounds. Then I started making the same exact meal but separating it out to 5 small bowls and eating it throughout the day. The result was 32 pounds in roughly 2 months.
I asked my doctor why that is, and he said the same thing. Some people need regular frequent meals or their bodies slow down and don't get rid of fat as fast.
I'll keep doing what works for my body. I've been dieting again for almost 2 months now, and it's been a near steady 2.5 pounds/week.
How did you measure your activity during this period?
0 exercise, wake up, sit in a chair 15 hours straight. I was super lazy, had no job and played games all day every day.
Nobody is saying that you shouldn't do what you prefer or what you've had results with, they're just questioning your statements of fact. Your personal (unverified) results aside, I'm not aware of any reliable evidence that eating multiple meals allows one to burn more calories than eating fewer meals.
It doesn't sound like you were measuring your activity in any reliable way. Even people who don't have jobs sometimes engage in activities like grocery shopping, visiting a friend, or just going outside.
Were you using a food scale to measure your portions or were you just counting on the fact that you were making the same meal meant that you were eating the same amount of calories each day?
The meal I made was prepackaged, there was no use for a food scale. When I say 0 activity, it was exactly that. I never left the house in my younger years, maybe twice a year.11 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Can you cite the research you mentioned? Interested in reading it.
Your guess would be as good as mine. I read about it 5 something years ago when my "1 big meal a day" diet wasn't working as well as I hoped, made the switch and always thought it was a miracle worker since the pounds started flying off. When I asked my doctor about it, he told me it was better to eat small meals over 1 big meal, so I always assumed that's what caused it.
I won't throw out the fact it could have just been sheer luck that my body decided to start losing weight significantly faster the same time I made the change, but personally I prefer 5 small meals a day so I don't feel like changing it up just to test that theory.
The way you phrased it here I take no issue with. Yeah, it is subjective and for some people they will find achieving their weight loss goals comes much easier if they have smaller meals scattered throughout the day.
I personally found that to be true myself. I also found it much easier to control my weight loss if I ate 5 meals rather than 2.
But it isn't because your metabolism goes into "high gear". That isn't how metabolism functions.6 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Can you cite the research you mentioned? Interested in reading it.
Your guess would be as good as mine. I read about it 5 something years ago when my "1 big meal a day" diet wasn't working as well as I hoped, made the switch and always thought it was a miracle worker since the pounds started flying off. When I asked my doctor about it, he told me it was better to eat small meals over 1 big meal, so I always assumed that's what caused it.
I won't throw out the fact it could have just been sheer luck that my body decided to start losing weight significantly faster the same time I made the change, but personally I prefer 5 small meals a day so I don't feel like changing it up just to test that theory.Aaron_K123 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
I've literally made the same big meal, separated it out in to 5 meals and ate it throughout the day.. versus eating the whole thing at night. The weight lost difference was significant for me despite eating the exact same thing. (Again, half a pound a week versus 2-2.5 pounds a week).
Wait, you made the exact same big meal and separated it into 5 meals for a substantial period of time, documented the results, and then switched to eating the exact same food/amount of food in one meal for another substantial period of time and documented those results?
How long did you spend on each plan?
Edit: I see you ate the exact same quantity of the exact same foods for four months straight. Why did you choose to do that?
About 2 months doing 1 big meal versus 5 small meals. Same food quantities each day. It made a significant difference for me. People can tell me I'm wrong, but I really don't care. I was the one seeing the results!
To answer your edit, I was super lazy back then. I found it easier to just make a week worth of meals in advance and put them in containers.janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
Actually, you're exactly wrong.
IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.
If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.
Yup, I'm wrong.
5 years ago, I just made the same exact meal for about 2 months straight and ate it all at once right before bed and I lost only 7 pounds. Then I started making the same exact meal but separating it out to 5 small bowls and eating it throughout the day. The result was 32 pounds in roughly 2 months.
I asked my doctor why that is, and he said the same thing. Some people need regular frequent meals or their bodies slow down and don't get rid of fat as fast.
I'll keep doing what works for my body. I've been dieting again for almost 2 months now, and it's been a near steady 2.5 pounds/week.
How did you measure your activity during this period?
0 exercise, wake up, sit in a chair 15 hours straight. I was super lazy, had no job and played games all day every day.
If you don't care what other people think then maybe stop trying to give them advice.
How does that make any sense? How is giving advice and caring what other people think the same thing at all?
Most doctors receive minimal training in nutrition and weight loss. I wouldn't take a doctor as an authority on these matters unless they had received additional training in it or it was their area of professional focus.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
I've literally made the same big meal, separated it out in to 5 meals and ate it throughout the day.. versus eating the whole thing at night. The weight lost difference was significant for me despite eating the exact same thing. (Again, half a pound a week versus 2-2.5 pounds a week).
Wait, you made the exact same big meal and separated it into 5 meals for a substantial period of time, documented the results, and then switched to eating the exact same food/amount of food in one meal for another substantial period of time and documented those results?
How long did you spend on each plan?
Edit: I see you ate the exact same quantity of the exact same foods for four months straight. Why did you choose to do that?
About 2 months doing 1 big meal versus 5 small meals. Same food quantities each day. It made a significant difference for me. People can tell me I'm wrong, but I really don't care. I was the one seeing the results!
To answer your edit, I was super lazy back then. I found it easier to just make a week worth of meals in advance and put them in containers.janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
Actually, you're exactly wrong.
IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.
If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.
Yup, I'm wrong.
5 years ago, I just made the same exact meal for about 2 months straight and ate it all at once right before bed and I lost only 7 pounds. Then I started making the same exact meal but separating it out to 5 small bowls and eating it throughout the day. The result was 32 pounds in roughly 2 months.
I asked my doctor why that is, and he said the same thing. Some people need regular frequent meals or their bodies slow down and don't get rid of fat as fast.
I'll keep doing what works for my body. I've been dieting again for almost 2 months now, and it's been a near steady 2.5 pounds/week.
How did you measure your activity during this period?
0 exercise, wake up, sit in a chair 15 hours straight. I was super lazy, had no job and played games all day every day.
Getting up out of the chair 5 times vs 1, as well as the other associated activity could easily account for the difference.
Just as one possible theory.
But you should submit yourself to science, I'm sure they would love to study you.
Also, without knowing what the components/makeup of this meal were, especially as you apparently weren't measuring it makes your account an interesting anecdote only.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Can you cite the research you mentioned? Interested in reading it.
Your guess would be as good as mine. I read about it 5 something years ago when my "1 big meal a day" diet wasn't working as well as I hoped, made the switch and always thought it was a miracle worker since the pounds started flying off. When I asked my doctor about it, he told me it was better to eat small meals over 1 big meal, so I always assumed that's what caused it.
I won't throw out the fact it could have just been sheer luck that my body decided to start losing weight significantly faster the same time I made the change, but personally I prefer 5 small meals a day so I don't feel like changing it up just to test that theory.
The way you phrased it here I take no issue with. Yeah, it is subjective and for some people they will find achieving their weight loss goals comes much easier if they have smaller meals scattered throughout the day.
I personally found that to be true myself. I also found it much easier to control my weight loss if I ate 5 meals rather than 2.
But it isn't because your metabolism goes into "high gear". That isn't how metabolism functions.
That's all I was trying to say... I just assumed it was keeping my metabolism high and that's why it was working. Maybe it somehow broke my weight loss plateau, maybe my body just prefers regular eating, maybe it was just sheer luck. I really have no clue.
At the end of the day, I don't think eating 1 big wendies meal a day is healthy at all (even if you lose weight or not), which was my original point. The point of losing weight is to be healthy, so the OP should really rethink what he is trying to accomplish.stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
I've literally made the same big meal, separated it out in to 5 meals and ate it throughout the day.. versus eating the whole thing at night. The weight lost difference was significant for me despite eating the exact same thing. (Again, half a pound a week versus 2-2.5 pounds a week).
Wait, you made the exact same big meal and separated it into 5 meals for a substantial period of time, documented the results, and then switched to eating the exact same food/amount of food in one meal for another substantial period of time and documented those results?
How long did you spend on each plan?
Edit: I see you ate the exact same quantity of the exact same foods for four months straight. Why did you choose to do that?
About 2 months doing 1 big meal versus 5 small meals. Same food quantities each day. It made a significant difference for me. People can tell me I'm wrong, but I really don't care. I was the one seeing the results!
To answer your edit, I was super lazy back then. I found it easier to just make a week worth of meals in advance and put them in containers.janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.
Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.
Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.
I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.
There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.
FIFY
I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.
Actually, you're exactly wrong.
IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.
If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.
Yup, I'm wrong.
5 years ago, I just made the same exact meal for about 2 months straight and ate it all at once right before bed and I lost only 7 pounds. Then I started making the same exact meal but separating it out to 5 small bowls and eating it throughout the day. The result was 32 pounds in roughly 2 months.
I asked my doctor why that is, and he said the same thing. Some people need regular frequent meals or their bodies slow down and don't get rid of fat as fast.
I'll keep doing what works for my body. I've been dieting again for almost 2 months now, and it's been a near steady 2.5 pounds/week.
How did you measure your activity during this period?
0 exercise, wake up, sit in a chair 15 hours straight. I was super lazy, had no job and played games all day every day.
Getting up out of the chair 5 times vs 1, as well as the other associated activity could easily account for the difference.
Just as one possible theory.
But you should submit yourself to science, I'm sure they would love to study you.
Also, without knowing what the components/makeup of this meal were, especially as you apparently weren't measuring it makes your account an interesting anecdote only.
I guess it could just be more movement throughout the house, but it was 7 vs 32 pounds over the same time spam. That seems very significant, even extreme exercise couldn't make that difference I'd think.
If my theory of high metabolism isn't true, then perhaps it was just a plateau or the fact my body took 2 months to react fully to the new diet. I still stand by eating 5 small meals a day is way healthier for you than 1 giant meal though. 8 -
Sounds like you need a new strategy.0
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Can you cite the research you mentioned? Interested in reading it.
Your guess would be as good as mine. I read about it 5 something years ago when my "1 big meal a day" diet wasn't working as well as I hoped, made the switch and always thought it was a miracle worker since the pounds started flying off. When I asked my doctor about it, he told me it was better to eat small meals over 1 big meal, so I always assumed that's what caused it.
I won't throw out the fact it could have just been sheer luck that my body decided to start losing weight significantly faster the same time I made the change, but personally I prefer 5 small meals a day so I don't feel like changing it up just to test that theory.
The way you phrased it here I take no issue with. Yeah, it is subjective and for some people they will find achieving their weight loss goals comes much easier if they have smaller meals scattered throughout the day.
I personally found that to be true myself. I also found it much easier to control my weight loss if I ate 5 meals rather than 2.
But it isn't because your metabolism goes into "high gear". That isn't how metabolism functions.
It's always nice to find someone else who eats multiple small meals a day but doesn't do it because they believe it causes the metabolism fairies to come and rev up their weight loss. I've stopped mentioning the small meals thing to people who ask about my weight loss because I don't want them to think I support their absurd, anti-scientific theories. When I eat less food more often, I personally find it easier to consume fewer overall calories. It's not magic.7 -
Everyone is saying the right things to you, but I will reiterate them. 1)It takes time. I've had a lot more success/less stress when I starting weighing myself once a month. 2)Fast food is not a healthy choice for every night even if it does fall into your calorie goals. Sodium for one thing, but also it's not gonna be as filling as a ton of salad and lean meat would be. 3)Drink more water. That is my number one diet tip, I will scream it to the skies. Try drinking 8 glasses of water a day. Count them. You will be shocked how it will ease the need to snack and help you feeling so much better (though you'll probably still be temped by junk food cause yum and it's ok to have that once in a while). 4)Eating that much of your daily calories in one meal is not healthy. Try to space it out throughout the day. 5)Calories is not the only thing as you're discovering. Try for more fruits/veggies/protein to fill you up. 5)If you're feeling better, that's a good sign. Despite all of the critiques, you're on the right track for your health and happiness.6
-
retro_gamer wrote: »For everyone who says I’m not getting the right nutrients from this I have been taking a men’s multi vitamin every day since I’ve started this.
So anyway last night I didn’t go to Wendy’s instead I ordered Chinese food, I ordered the combo special of boneless spareribs, pork fried rice, and an egg roll, but yeah today I weighed myself and I still didn’t lose any weight in fact I am the exact same weight as I was yesterday morning AND I went on a 6 mile walk yesterday in the cold.
I'm starting to wonder if you're yanking our chains. Chinese food is notorious for its high sodium content - and I've had fried rice and egg rolls that were swimming in grease.
The other thing is: you're seriously expecting to see a weight drop in 24 hours? And expect that changing from one type of takeout that's high in sodium to another is going to make a difference - again, in 24 hours?5 -
retro_gamer wrote: »I downed two bottles of water back to back since the sodium probably has a lot to do with me not losing weight like you guys are saying.
Drinking water isn't going to reduce the body's tendency to retain water if you're eating a lot of sodium.7 -
retro_gamer wrote: »I downed two bottles of water back to back since the sodium probably has a lot to do with me not losing weight like you guys are saying.
Drinking water isn't going to reduce the body's tendency to retain water if you're eating a lot of sodium.
Actually drinking water would help dilute the sodium levels in your body allowing your body to flush out sodium with water and thus reduce the amount of water you were retaining.
If you eat sodium your body will retain water to dilute it to the appropriate concentration. If you drink water it will dilute the sodium concentration in your body and your body will flush out water to bring the sodium concentration up to the correct level.
Basically if you want to drop retained water then drink lots of water. So someone saying they downed two bottles of water to deal with sodium related water retention is actually totally reasonable.7 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Actually drinking water would help dilute the sodium levels in your body allowing your body to flush out sodium with water and thus reduce the amount of water you were retaining.
If you eat sodium your body will retain water to dilute it to the appropriate concentration. If you drink water it will dilute the sodium concentration in your body and your body will flush out water to bring the sodium concentration up to the correct level.
Basically if you want to drop retained water then drink lots of water. So someone saying they downed two bottles of water to deal with sodium related water retention is actually totally reasonable.
It might help dilute the sodium levels but it's not going to eliminate the OP's choice of mostly high sodium meals. Drinking two bottles a water is not a substitute for making healthier choices - the OP did not indicate he intended to change his choices. It's similar to a heavy smoker switching to "natural" cigarettes.
Whoever gave me the "woo" click, by the way, thanks. I deserved to be "punished" for promoting misleading and dangerous information - like, don't expect a couple bottles of water to make up for a crappy diet.11
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions