Best meal split to lose fat?

dunnkatelyn77

I've been seeing a lot of conflicting information about how many meals I should be eating a day. I know there is intermittent fasting where I would get 1-2 600 cal meals or Ive read that eating more meals could boost metabolism so maybe 5-6 200 cal meals. What would be best for losing weight

Lietchi

Aiming for an intake between 600 and 1200 calories doesn't sound like a good plan, no matter how you spread your meals. What are your stats: sex, height, weight, age? 1200 is considered the minimum for women, but even that is too low for many women. Losing weight too quickly is not healthy.

As for your original question: if there is a difference, it's so small so as to be irrelevant compared to the importance of adherence (eating in a way that is sustainable for you).
Intermittent fasting works well for some, others prefer smaller meals throughout the day. Whatever strategy makes it easier to stick to your calorie goal.

I tried eating smaller, more frequent meals based on the 'higher metabolism' story. Failed miserably because I was never satiated, hungry all the time, and ended up gaining weight even (this was before I started counting calories). But other people enjoy eating that way. So experiment and find what works for you.

AnnPT77

+1 to what Lietchi said.

What number of meals/snacks is best for fat loss? The schedule that keeps you feeling tolerably full most of the time, and energetic all the time . . . which differs by individual, anything from one meal a day to continuous all-day grazing on small snacks, or anything in between. Try things, see what works for you.

At constant calories, the weight loss results will be about the same. (The scale may differ a tiny bit with schedule, because of how much food/drink is in your system on its way to becoming waste at the time you weigh in. That's not about changes in body fat, so who cares, really?)

Some women need to eat as few as 1200 calories to lose weight . . . typically, those are women who are some combination of older, relatively inactive, short, and with relatively little weight to lose. Other women, who need more calories, eating that little? Bad plan.

I lost most of 50+ pounds in less than a year at 5'5" and age 59-60 (plus hypothyroid) eating 1400-1600 calories plus all carefully-estimated exercise calories - so 1400-2000 gross calorie intake most days. I maintain a weight in the 120s pounds now at pre-exercise calories around 2000, up to 2500 and occasionally more with exercise. I'd lose stupid-fast if I ate 1200 total calories daily, with bad health consequences. That wouldn't be true for everyone . . . but be careful, eh?

The idea that all women need to eat tiny numbers of calories in order to lose weight . . . that's just inaccurate. Any of us needs to find the right intake and eating schedule that gives us sensibly moderate weight loss, alongside feeling reasonably full/satisfied so we can stick to it, and having a good energy level so we don't reduce calorie burn by dragging through our day.

Fast weight loss is not necessarily healthy weight loss, or even successful weight loss.

MsCzar

1200 calories is the magic number at which I lose weight. I aim at 1200 calories (operative word: Aim) and usually have two meals a day taken between 10am and 6pm. YMMV - but that's what works best for me: female, relatively sedentary, older with a long history of yo-yo dieting.

My calorie split depends on what I fancy eating that day. For example, if I have my heart set on a generous plate of spaghetti and cheesy meatballs for dinner, breakfast might be simply yogurt or fruit or plain eggs. This morning, I opted for two large breakfast burritos - so dinner is a bit of broiled fish and a cup of veggie soup.

nossmf

Be aware your "ideal" meal split may change over time. A decade ago, I ate five meals per day (breakfast, lunch, dinner, snack, bedtime dessert), roughly equal calories in each. These days, I eat two meals, again evenly split.

redoux33

I have no idea what the science is around this but I eat two meals, at noon and 5 pm. Older white female, lightly active. I occasionally also eat a small snack but I try to be done eating by 6 pm, so my fasting window is 18 hours. The 1200 calorie a day thing depends on several factors, one being age and another being how slow or fast your metabolism is. I maintain really well on 1200 so to lose I have to eat less than that and weight loss is very slow. I was told that it is essential to eat something within 30 minutes of waking up in the morning but I've also heard the boost to your metabolism by doing that is pretty minimal. It takes some trial and error to find out what works for you. I did read recently that fasting for 18 hours daily automatically puts you in fat burning mode, but I don't know if it's true. A side note, if I was trying to eat 5 or 6 times in my 6 hour eating window I wouldn't get anything else done!

neanderthin

It really doesn't matter very much. Do what you can stick with because compliance is important.

dunnkatelyn77

@Lietchi I'm F, 5'5, 206ibs, 27 years old. I know fast weightless is not good. I've lost 110 ibs already but unfortunately my doctor wants me to lose 10ibs before I have my next blood work appointment in a month. With my stats that puts me at 6778 cals per week if I run 5 times a week.

Lietchi

dunnkatelyn77 wrote: »

@Lietchi I'm F, 5'5, 206ibs, 27 years old. I know fast weightless is not good. I've lost 110 ibs already but unfortunately my doctor wants me to lose 10ibs before I have my next blood work appointment in a month. With my stats that puts me at 6778 cals per week if I run 5 times a week.

Since you've already lost weight, are you basing your calculations §6778 kcal per week) on your actual rate of loss compared to your actual intake?

Losing 10lbs in a month sounds like an unhealthy goal if it means that you have to eat less than 1000 calories per day. But perhaps your doctor sees larger health risks associated with your weight than the risks of fast weight loss? High blood pressure, blood sugar problems,...
I really wouldn't recommend eating that little unless for a short period of time and under close supervision from a doctor (risks are heart failure, gall stones,...) but obviously, I know nothing about your health situation.

Aside from the issue of the number of calories, I'd say you're best off spreading your calories in a way that suits you best: both throughout the day, or even throughout the week. Adherence is much more important than the minute differences that meal timing might have on your metabolism.

dunnkatelyn77

@Lietchi I've been maintaining a year on ~2200 cals a day. I used this number to calculate what I would need to eat per week to lose 2.5 ibs a week.

Honestly, I have no idea why my doc wants me to lose so much weight fast. The only thing I can think of is I have insulin resistance do to PCOS and low good cholesterol but these haven't been helped by my previous weight loss and diet changes.

neanderthin

dunnkatelyn77 wrote: »

@Lietchi I'm F, 5'5, 206ibs, 27 years old. I know fast weightless is not good. I've lost 110 ibs already but unfortunately my doctor wants me to lose 10ibs before I have my next blood work appointment in a month. With my stats that puts me at 6778 cals per week if I run 5 times a week.

Very low calorie diet have been prescribed by doctors for decades. They're always for shorter durations and generally for a specific reason. Maybe ask your Dr.

springlering62

In former days, old me would have taken advice from a physician as golden and never questioned it.

Now new me, who really is old (and hopefully wiser), recognizes that god gave me a mouth to ask questions with.

Use your gift and ask.