Advice

2»

Answers

  • ddsb1111
    ddsb1111 Posts: 857 Member
    edited February 11
    Some basic but important math 🤓

    3,500 calories = 1 lb per week
    1750 calories = 1/2 lb per week

    3500/7 days a week = 500 calories deficit per day

    1750/7 days a week= 250 calories deficit per day

    If your maintenance is 2100 calories then…

    2100 - 500 = 1600 calories per day to lose 1 lb a week.

    If you are losing .5 lb a week then…

    2100 - 250 = 1850 calories per day to lose .5 lb a week.

    Either you are eating 1850 calories per day or your maintenance calories are much lower than you think.

    You mentioned you eat 1200 calories per day and you are losing .5 lbs a week. That puts your maintenance at…

    1200 + 250 = 1450 calories per day

    I wrote all this out because someone told you a 328 calorie daily deficit would make you lose 1 lb per week and that’s really off. And it’s clear that either your maintenance calories are incorrect or you’re eating more calories than you think. The only way to know for sure is:

    - consistently weighing and logging everything you consume with calories
    - monitoring for 4-6 weeks
    - tracking your weight at the same time several times a week to check the trend

    It’s entirely up to you if you want the accurate calories or if you’re comfortable winging it using an IF window. No judgement either way, I don’t weigh much anymore myself. A lot of people eyeball their portions and it can work fine. Just know it’s there when you start hitting a wall and want to understand why you’re gaining and how to fix it. Okay, I’ll leave you alone now, poor thing ☺️
  • Harriet9748
    Harriet9748 Posts: 3 Member
    Perhaps your metabolism has become efficient at omad and thus conserves energy. I would consider spreading your calories over the day
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,853 Member
    Harriet9748 wrote: »
    Perhaps your metabolism has become efficient at omad and thus conserves energy. I would consider spreading your calories over the day

    You mean that the brain, all the organs functioning would suddenly need less energy? What about moving around? No sorry, this is not how this works.
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,726 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    Harriet9748 wrote: »
    Perhaps your metabolism has become efficient at omad and thus conserves energy. I would consider spreading your calories over the day

    You mean that the brain, all the organs functioning would suddenly need less energy? What about moving around? No sorry, this is not how this works.

    Well, I would nuance this, because it is quite possible to slow your metabolism by not eating enough energy: slower hair and nail growth, slightly lower body temperature, and perhaps other subtle changes. Also: not consuming enough energy can lead a person to be less active (less movement throughout the day, less fidgeting,...). Not to the point of 'your body will hold onto all bodyfat' of course (the more common starvation mode myth) but it could still have an impact.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 33,784 Member
    Lietchi wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    Harriet9748 wrote: »
    Perhaps your metabolism has become efficient at omad and thus conserves energy. I would consider spreading your calories over the day

    You mean that the brain, all the organs functioning would suddenly need less energy? What about moving around? No sorry, this is not how this works.

    Well, I would nuance this, because it is quite possible to slow your metabolism by not eating enough energy: slower hair and nail growth, slightly lower body temperature, and perhaps other subtle changes. Also: not consuming enough energy can lead a person to be less active (less movement throughout the day, less fidgeting,...). Not to the point of 'your body will hold onto all bodyfat' of course (the more common starvation mode myth) but it could still have an impact.

    I agree, and that's totally relevant to the OP's situation currently.

    But @yirara was responding to a claim that OMAD may make the body "more efficient" to the point of requiring fewer calories to operate when eating OMAD vs. some less TRE-type schedule.

    I've never seen anything that would support that idea. In fact, some adherents say that OMAD makes them feel more energetic, and some advocates suggest it promotes fat-burning, which might imply the opposite. (I haven't made a deep dive, but any research I've stumbled over suggests OMAD is more or less neutral with respect to calorie needs. )

    Yeah, silly-low calories, OMAD or otherwise, can trigger lower calorie needs. I wouldn't call that "more efficient metabolism" exactly, because the mechanisms are IMO a kick in the teeth of good health. But down-regulated calorie needs, potentially, yeah.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,139 Member
    I've also got some personal questions as to whether omad is optimal for protein intake.

    Between the time it takes to digest a large meal and "natural" differences in fully digesting food and especially a larger bolus I'm fairly sure the protein intake is spread out much more than the single intake event suggests.

    But depending on timing and type of exercise and recovery I'm not sure TRE/OMAD is truly just as good a way as any to intake your protein.

    As it doesn't affect me since I don't train enough and do not practice TRE for sufficient hours or OMAD almost ever other than after AYCE brunch exceeding 2 days worth of calories and not digested fully till well into the night, I can't say I've looked through the literature on this and I'm willing to posit that the consensus is that it won't be causing terrible trouble else TRE would have less of a following.

Categories