One meal a day
Options
Replies
-
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
"While work in rats and mice, for whom everything happens faster, has found that a single meal can lower metabolic rate, this is irrelevant to humans. Skipping a meal will not affect human metabolic rate at all."
One man article versus 12 references of published science articles. Of course it is up to you, what you find as more reliable research... :
You should actually look at the resources and consider the other available studies. In total there's been somewhere around 26-27 studies and the majority do not point to an increased meal frequency being metabolically beneficial. James Krieger has these all laid out in his site.
Edit: and yes it's poor form on my part to mention studies without linking them but I'm in the hospital posting from a cell phone. The main consideration here is that when you consider the entire body of evidence in humans the study results are mixed with the majority showing no differences and a few on either side (a few pointing towards high frequency being beneficial and a few showing lower).
Topic is not about high frequency meals and nibbling food entire day. Topic is about cons to eating one meal a day.0 -
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
"While work in rats and mice, for whom everything happens faster, has found that a single meal can lower metabolic rate, this is irrelevant to humans. Skipping a meal will not affect human metabolic rate at all."
One man article versus 12 references of published science articles. Of course it is up to you, what you find as more reliable research... :
You should actually look at the resources and consider the other available studies. In total there's been somewhere around 26-27 studies and the majority do not point to an increased meal frequency being metabolically beneficial. James Krieger has these all laid out in his site.
Edit: and yes it's poor form on my part to mention studies without linking them but I'm in the hospital posting from a cell phone. The main consideration here is that when you consider the entire body of evidence in humans the study results are mixed with the majority showing no differences and a few on either side (a few pointing towards high frequency being beneficial and a few showing lower).
Topic is not about high frequency meals and nibbling food entire day. Topic is about cons to eating one meal a day.
Errrr.....
:huh:0 -
And how many of the references in your post looked at humans consuming a single meal?
In fact , worth noting that this study which was part of your link indicated favorable body composition changes in the 1m/d group:
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/4/981.full0 -
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
"While work in rats and mice, for whom everything happens faster, has found that a single meal can lower metabolic rate, this is irrelevant to humans. Skipping a meal will not affect human metabolic rate at all."
One man article versus 12 references of published science articles. Of course it is up to you, what you find as more reliable research... :
You should actually look at the resources and consider the other available studies. In total there's been somewhere around 26-27 studies and the majority do not point to an increased meal frequency being metabolically beneficial. James Krieger has these all laid out in his site.
Edit: and yes it's poor form on my part to mention studies without linking them but I'm in the hospital posting from a cell phone. The main consideration here is that when you consider the entire body of evidence in humans the study results are mixed with the majority showing no differences and a few on either side (a few pointing towards high frequency being beneficial and a few showing lower).
Seeing as she posted articles versus actual studies, I don't really think you should be apologizing. But my 2 cents.
Scientific articles which are referenced in the link I provided are actually based on serious studies. Most scientific results are published in the form of articles in scientific magazines. But here are actual references:
References
1. Journal of Inflammation: Controlled Meal Frequency without Caloric Restriction Alters Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cell Cytokine Production
2. PubMed.gov: Acute Effects on Metabolism and Appetite Profile of One Meal Difference in the Lower Range of Meal Frequency
3. Journal of Circadian Rhythms: Differential Roles of Breakfast Only (One Meal Per Day) and a Bigger Breakfast with a Small Dinner (Two Meals Per Day) in Mice Fed a High-fat Diet with Regard to Induced Obesity and Lipid Metabolism
4. Journal of Adolescent Health: Eating Habits and Total and Abdominal Fat in Spanish Adolescents -- Influence of Physical Activity.
5. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults
6. Metabolism Clinical and Experimental:Impact of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction on glucose regulation in healthy, normal-weight middle-aged men and women
Resources
1, Utne Reader: Commanding U.S. Forces on One Meal Per Day
2, Cele*****y: Liam Hemsworth Ate Only One Meal Per Day While Filming "Hunger Games"
3. American Catholic: What Is the Church's Official Position Concerning Penance and Abstinence from Meat during Lent?
4. News Medical: Religious Abstinence
5. PubMed.gov: Living in Low-cost Housing Settlements in Cape Town, South Africa -- The Epidemiological Characteristics Associated with Increased Health Vulnerability
6. Science Daily: How Frequency Of Meals May Affect Health0 -
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
"While work in rats and mice, for whom everything happens faster, has found that a single meal can lower metabolic rate, this is irrelevant to humans. Skipping a meal will not affect human metabolic rate at all."
One man article versus 12 references of published science articles. Of course it is up to you, what you find as more reliable research... :
You should actually look at the resources and consider the other available studies. In total there's been somewhere around 26-27 studies and the majority do not point to an increased meal frequency being metabolically beneficial. James Krieger has these all laid out in his site.
Edit: and yes it's poor form on my part to mention studies without linking them but I'm in the hospital posting from a cell phone. The main consideration here is that when you consider the entire body of evidence in humans the study results are mixed with the majority showing no differences and a few on either side (a few pointing towards high frequency being beneficial and a few showing lower).
Topic is not about high frequency meals and nibbling food entire day. Topic is about cons to eating one meal a day.
Your link even concluded:
"Scientists are still uncertain about why eating one meal each day may have adverse medical consequences and are exploring various theories about potential causes. "
The "may" is what I question. They don't know. Because correlation does not equal causation and just because two things may appear to be caused from the other, they can't prove it. Also, mice studies are not human studies. We are different.0 -
Hope he'll forgive me for using him as an example but MFP user LOLBroscience
He eats between 2800-3200 cals (depending on if he's in a bulk, cut or maintaining) and he does so in just 2 meals.
I guess someone better tell him he's doing it wrong and he's going to end up like a sumo because he only eats 2 meals.0 -
As long as you are eating your calories - as laid out by MFP (guessing around 1800 or so by the number in your post), I think you'll be okay. However, that is a ton of calories for one meal and may lead to more unhealthy or not as healthy choices - high in calories vs. high in nutrition. As long as you work to have great nutrition...I wouldn't worry too much.
As I understand it, and I've done a lot of nutritional studying, the body expends as many calories burning through food calories regardless if they are all at once or in several different meals.
BTW, I'm a two meal, one snack a day eater. Works for me...but I consume all my calories within +/- 10% every day - mostly fruit, veggies, and lean meat.0 -
Hope he'll forgive me for using him as an example but MFP user LOLBroscience
He eats between 2800-3200 cals (depending on if he's in a bulk, cut or maintaining) and he does so in just 2 meals.
I guess someone better tell him he's doing it wrong and he's going to end up like a sumo because he only eats 2 meals.
This is logical fallacy of composition as well as incomplete comparison and hasty generalization. Check the list of logical fallacies.0 -
Hey everyone,
So I just wanted some input.
I started a new plan for myself and i can tell its already going to be the start to something amazing.
I decided to eat 1 meal at 5pm with a healthy dessert . I have never been a breakfast person and I would usually snack at lunch time on unhealthy things. Waiting until 5 pm and drinking water gives me the full feeling that grazing through out the day does not.
Or to constantly think about the meals i have to prepare etc. I will be going to nursing school in september and things will be hectic. So eating one meal a day is the best way to go RIGHT?
My friend said its not good for my metabolism and that i would gain it back if i were to eat breakfast.
Im sorry but I call BULLsh** :grumble: back in the caveman days people were to busy looking for food they only had 1 meal a day. and was there obesity NOPE.. plus if your goal is to get your calories in should it matter when. Its easy for me to stay busy in the morning and excercise until 5pm hits and than i have my 1 meal, yoga, tv and bed.
Is it to good to be true, or do you think if you eat one meal a day within your calories, excercise and build a calorie deficent that i will loose weight
starting:378
One meal a day is fine.
This is about how many total calories a day you eat. Count them up and your are done -- no fussing around with what time of this or that.0 -
TruthThose are facts. Food for thought.. why they do that...
Source?
Also since you have details on what sumo wrestlers typically eat, let's talk about their total calorie intake too.
Of course it is about intake and burn of calories. You will always loose weight once you burn more than eat. But here is the problem.
When you don't eat breakfast and starve yourself for most part of the day, you slow down your metabolism and also you teach your body to conserve every possible amount of energy. .. which means your body learns to storage fat.
If one meal a day works for you.. it is better to eat it in the morning, because you have time to burn calories throughout the day.0 -
. But when you use sumo wrestlers as an example it's ok?Hope he'll forgive me for using him as an example but MFP user LOLBroscience
He eats between 2800-3200 cals (depending on if he's in a bulk, cut or maintaining) and he does so in just 2 meals.
I guess someone better tell him he's doing it wrong and he's going to end up like a sumo because he only eats 2 meals.
This is logical fallacy of composition as well as incomplete comparison and hasty generalization. Check the list of logical fallacies.0 -
. But when you use sumo wrestlers as an example it's ok?Hope he'll forgive me for using him as an example but MFP user LOLBroscience
He eats between 2800-3200 cals (depending on if he's in a bulk, cut or maintaining) and he does so in just 2 meals.
I guess someone better tell him he's doing it wrong and he's going to end up like a sumo because he only eats 2 meals.
This is logical fallacy of composition as well as incomplete comparison and hasty generalization. Check the list of logical fallacies.
Right! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
"While work in rats and mice, for whom everything happens faster, has found that a single meal can lower metabolic rate, this is irrelevant to humans. Skipping a meal will not affect human metabolic rate at all."
One man article versus 12 references of published science articles. Of course it is up to you, what you find as more reliable research... :
You should actually look at the resources and consider the other available studies. In total there's been somewhere around 26-27 studies and the majority do not point to an increased meal frequency being metabolically beneficial. James Krieger has these all laid out in his site.
Edit: and yes it's poor form on my part to mention studies without linking them but I'm in the hospital posting from a cell phone. The main consideration here is that when you consider the entire body of evidence in humans the study results are mixed with the majority showing no differences and a few on either side (a few pointing towards high frequency being beneficial and a few showing lower).
Topic is not about high frequency meals and nibbling food entire day. Topic is about cons to eating one meal a day.
Your link even concluded:
"Scientists are still uncertain about why eating one meal each day may have adverse medical consequences and are exploring various theories about potential causes. "
The "may" is what I question. They don't know. Because correlation does not equal causation and just because two things may appear to be caused from the other, they can't prove it. Also, mice studies are not human studies. We are different.
Lack of explain causes doesn't eliminate the fact of existing scientific, statistical observations.0 -
It's fine, just eat the correct calories / macros. I don't care if you do it in 8 meals or 1. I've done it both ways. Matter of fact the most ripped I"ve ever been was when I was only eating one meal a day in during a deployment a few years ago.
The one meal a day thing is easy to do on a cut. Not easy to do on a bulk because it's hard to down that many calories that a bulk requires in one meal.
These have been my experience.0 -
I'm not going to jump in on all the health discussions here, but I would just throw this out there: I'm in nursing school too, and I have to wake up crazy freaking early for my clinical rotations (4am, to be exact). If I didn't eat anything until 13 hours after I woke up, I don't think I'd make it. I'd be a heap on the floor of the hospital by noon.
If you're going to be waking up really early for classes, or especially for clinicals, I wouldn't recommend not eating until such a late time. Plus, with clinicals, you often don't really have time to sit and eat a proper meal halfway through- you're not guaranteed any breaks! So I'd definitely suggest you eat something before hand, or you'll be experiencing first hand the symptoms of low blood sugar.0 -
Because of statistics.
. But when you use sumo wrestlers as an example it's ok?Hope he'll forgive me for using him as an example but MFP user LOLBroscience
He eats between 2800-3200 cals (depending on if he's in a bulk, cut or maintaining) and he does so in just 2 meals.
I guess someone better tell him he's doing it wrong and he's going to end up like a sumo because he only eats 2 meals.
This is logical fallacy of composition as well as incomplete comparison and hasty generalization. Check the list of logical fallacies.0 -
Those are facts. Food for thought.. why they do that...
Source?
Also since you have details on what sumo wrestlers typically eat, let's talk about their total calorie intake too.
Of course it is about intake and burn of calories. You will always loose weight once you burn more than eat. But here is the problem.
When you don't eat breakfast and starve yourself for most part of the day, you slow down your metabolism and also you teach your body to conserve every possible amount of energy. .. which means your body learns to storage fat.
If one meal a day works for you.. it is better to eat it in the morning, because you have time to burn calories throughout the day.
Lol, rly?
I did intermittent fasting and ate all my calories between 6pm and right before bed at 2am. And we are talking over 2000 calories. I dropped my bodyfat to 12%. So yeah... meal timing is irrelevant.0 -
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
"While work in rats and mice, for whom everything happens faster, has found that a single meal can lower metabolic rate, this is irrelevant to humans. Skipping a meal will not affect human metabolic rate at all."
One man article versus 12 references of published science articles. Of course it is up to you, what you find as more reliable research... :
You should actually look at the resources and consider the other available studies. In total there's been somewhere around 26-27 studies and the majority do not point to an increased meal frequency being metabolically beneficial. James Krieger has these all laid out in his site.
Edit: and yes it's poor form on my part to mention studies without linking them but I'm in the hospital posting from a cell phone. The main consideration here is that when you consider the entire body of evidence in humans the study results are mixed with the majority showing no differences and a few on either side (a few pointing towards high frequency being beneficial and a few showing lower).
Topic is not about high frequency meals and nibbling food entire day. Topic is about cons to eating one meal a day.
Your link even concluded:
"Scientists are still uncertain about why eating one meal each day may have adverse medical consequences and are exploring various theories about potential causes. "
The "may" is what I question. They don't know. Because correlation does not equal causation and just because two things may appear to be caused from the other, they can't prove it. Also, mice studies are not human studies. We are different.
Lack of explain causes doesn't eliminate the fact of existing effects.
So, if every day I eat an avacado for a study over X amount of time and develop herpes during that time. The avacado must have given me herpes. Ok.
So now we all know. Avacado = herpes0 -
Those are facts. Food for thought.. why they do that...
Source?
Also since you have details on what sumo wrestlers typically eat, let's talk about their total calorie intake too.
Of course it is about intake and burn of calories. You will always loose weight once you burn more than eat. But here is the problem.
When you don't eat breakfast and starve yourself for most part of the day, you slow down your metabolism and also you teach your body to conserve every possible amount of energy. .. which means your body learns to storage fat.
If one meal a day works for you.. it is better to eat it in the morning, because you have time to burn calories throughout the day.
Lol, rly?
I did intermittent fasting and ate all my calories between 6pm and right before bed at 2am. And we are talking over 2000 calories. I dropped my bodyfat to 12%. So yeah... meal timing is irrelevant.
Maybe your another logical fallacy? :laugh:0 -
That's totally not true. Sumo wrestlers eat about 20,000 calories a day, and they certainly eat breakfast. As for exercising on an empty stomach, their stomachs are pretty much never empty, due to the extremely high calorie intake they require.Sumo wrestlers eat only one or two meals a day. They never eat breakfasts. They exercise on empty stomach...Go figure....0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions