Two meals a day benefits

lizaiza79

I have done a bit of research on the benefits of eating two meals a day. It is my favorite way to eat - anyone else eat only breakfast and lunch, with a snack or two? The important thing being not eating after 4 or 5 (eating all calories within 8 hours of starting the day?

It is very effective in losing weight, as I can eat the same calories but eat them later in the day and not lose or I can eat them before 4 and lose consistently everyday or two. A friend of mine was a biochemist and they studied it in depth. Once you body realizes it won't get any easy energy (food) it will start burning stored energy. If you eat even one calorie after your 4-5pm cut off, your body will slow down the fat burning as it thinks it is getting food. While eating two meals, a large breakfast is very important as well, so your body doesn't slow down to save energy if it doesn't get enough food to start the active part of the day.

I know this goes against the 6 meal plan that many people adhere too...so don't crucify me, just interested to see if anyone else eats like this.

Sidesteal

I have done a bit of research on the benefits of eating two meals a day. It is my favorite way to eat - anyone else eat only breakfast and lunch, with a snack or two? The important thing being not eating after 4 or 5 (eating all calories within 8 hours of starting the day?

It is very effective in losing weight, as I can eat the same calories but eat them later in the day and not lose or I can eat them before 4 and lose consistently everyday or two. A friend of mine was a biochemist and they studied it in depth. Once you body realizes it won't get any easy energy (food) it will start burning stored energy. If you eat even one calorie after your 4-5pm cut off, your body will slow down the fat burning as it thinks it is getting food. While eating two meals, a large breakfast is very important as well, so your body doesn't slow down to save energy if it doesn't get enough food to start the active part of the day.

I know this goes against the 6 meal plan that many people adhere too...so don't crucify me, just interested to see if anyone else eats like this.

If I presented you with information that thoroughly suggested that the majority of what you wrote up above, is incorrect, would you read it and moreover would you consider changing your position on this?

EDIT: It has nothing to do with number of meals as that's largely irrelevant. It has to do with the assertion that WHEN you eat makes a big impact on your energy balance.

lizaiza79

I have done a bit of research on the benefits of eating two meals a day. It is my favorite way to eat - anyone else eat only breakfast and lunch, with a snack or two? The important thing being not eating after 4 or 5 (eating all calories within 8 hours of starting the day?

It is very effective in losing weight, as I can eat the same calories but eat them later in the day and not lose or I can eat them before 4 and lose consistently everyday or two. A friend of mine was a biochemist and they studied it in depth. Once you body realizes it won't get any easy energy (food) it will start burning stored energy. If you eat even one calorie after your 4-5pm cut off, your body will slow down the fat burning as it thinks it is getting food. While eating two meals, a large breakfast is very important as well, so your body doesn't slow down to save energy if it doesn't get enough food to start the active part of the day.

I know this goes against the 6 meal plan that many people adhere too...so don't crucify me, just interested to see if anyone else eats like this.

If I presented you with information that thoroughly suggested that the majority of what you wrote up above, is incorrect, would you read it and moreover would you consider changing your position on this?

Certainly! I'm here to learn!

taso42

Cool story bro

Sidesteal

I have done a bit of research on the benefits of eating two meals a day. It is my favorite way to eat - anyone else eat only breakfast and lunch, with a snack or two? The important thing being not eating after 4 or 5 (eating all calories within 8 hours of starting the day?

It is very effective in losing weight, as I can eat the same calories but eat them later in the day and not lose or I can eat them before 4 and lose consistently everyday or two. A friend of mine was a biochemist and they studied it in depth. Once you body realizes it won't get any easy energy (food) it will start burning stored energy. If you eat even one calorie after your 4-5pm cut off, your body will slow down the fat burning as it thinks it is getting food. While eating two meals, a large breakfast is very important as well, so your body doesn't slow down to save energy if it doesn't get enough food to start the active part of the day.

I know this goes against the 6 meal plan that many people adhere too...so don't crucify me, just interested to see if anyone else eats like this.

If I presented you with information that thoroughly suggested that the majority of what you wrote up above, is incorrect, would you read it and moreover would you consider changing your position on this?

Certainly! I'm here to learn!

Ok, I'll be a few moments then. Please be aware that I'm not picking on you personally. I'm going to explain it piecewise via your original post.

MtnKat

Grabs a snack.

This should be interesting.

infamousmk

In for the knowledge!

sgarrard01

I have seen someone preeching the benifits of this before (a post yesterday i think), I cant remember the website though! However, is it really a way to live! huge breakfast and lunch than starving for the remaning 16 hours! Plus, what if you have a huge calorie burn in exersize than you could be way under! or if your consuming protien after exersize for recovery/build (so you can do it again the next day) than it doesnt work!

Rae6503

Basically calorie timing/frequency doesn't matter. It doesn't help you or harm you in terms of total weight loss. It's preference. If I ate 2000 in two meals before 5pm, or 2000 calories in two meals after 7pm, or 2000 calories by eating 83.333333 calories every hour on the hour my results would be the same. As it is, I prefer to have coffee for breakfast, two meals, and 3 snacks.

BrettPGH

I'm generally a lunch and dinner, no breakfast, couple of snacks guy myself. It's worked for me.

But do whatever SideSteal says. He knows best.

shae68143

Bump

Insanity2bSane

bump

lisawants2bskinny

I need to hear this

JoolieW68

For me, if I have a super light 'dinner' (basically a snack), or skip dinner AND do a workout in the evening, it will show positively on the scale in the morning.

BUT, I don't do that very often since I get too hungry and want to just eat the kitchen counter.

UsedToBeHusky

Bump for Sidesteal's info.

auroranflash

I eat my largest meal at dinner and still managed to lose 25lbs since January... I don't really think it matters except for what works best for the person's lifestyle, but if you've found something to help you, then by all means stick with it. I just don't think our bodies are programmed to work that way.

lizaiza79

I have seen someone preeching the benifits of this before (a post yesterday i think), I cant remember the website though! However, is it really a way to live! huge breakfast and lunch than starving for the remaning 16 hours! Plus, what if you have a huge calorie burn in exersize than you could be way under! or if your consuming protien after exersize for recovery/build (so you can do it again the next day) than it doesnt work!

I am doubting this method would work well for those trying to build significant muscle. It seems to be only a maintenance or balancing method.

I have run into that occasionally where I end up doing an unexpected activity in the evenings (riding horse for long periods, etc) and ended up not eating enough calories for the day, but it doesn't affect me negatively. But for those that do their workout at night - I don't think your body would have the fuel to do so effectively.

Sidesteal

I am starting this off with a premise. My premise is that we are comparing different meal timings and frequencies (and number of meals) but we are keeping the SAME total amount of food for purposes of comparison. In other words, if anyone makes the claim that 2 meals is better because you eat less or that stopping your eating at 5pm makes you eat less for the day, then that's fine and dandy but that's not comparing timing, that's comparing total food intake and that's pretty obvious.

So, when I discuss the below, I'm assuming you have a big pile of food and we are comparing the effects of eating it all in 2 meals, or splitting it up over 6 meals, or eating it before 4, or whatever the case may be in the below.

I have done a bit of research on the benefits of eating two meals a day. It is my favorite way to eat - anyone else eat only breakfast and lunch, with a snack or two?

So far this is fine. This is largely a personal preference choice as there likely won't be a significant physiological difference.

The important thing being not eating after 4 or 5 (eating all calories within 8 hours of starting the day?

This is nonsense.
http://www.leangains.com/2011/06/is-late-night-eating-better-for-fat.html

Effects of different meal timing regimens:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3508745

It is very effective in losing weight, as I can eat the same calories but eat them later in the day and not lose or I can eat them before 4 and lose consistently everyday or two. A friend of mine was a biochemist and they studied it in depth. Once you body realizes it won't get any easy energy (food) it will start burning stored energy. If you eat even one calorie after your 4-5pm cut off, your body will slow down the fat burning as it thinks it is getting food.

Everything above is also nonsense. Your body accumulates fat through fat storage exceeding fat oxidation and this cannot occur in the absence of a caloric surplus. Even if you eat all of your food before bed, you'll be oxidizing fat the next day during your long waiting time between meals (remember, if you eat before bed then by default you are fasting during the day). During this fasting time your fat oxidation will offset any fat storage caused by eating that massive meal. (Edit: Where you land in terms of net fat gain or loss will ultimately be governed by total energy balance).

Late night carbs and weight loss:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475137

Effects of Ramadan fasting on body composition. (<--- late night eating, but in fairness I don't believe total energy intake was controlled here)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17909674

Favorable body composition from large evening meals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9040548

so your body doesn't slow down to save energy if it doesn't get enough food to start the active part of the day.

Your body will not slow down in the absence of food. If you're referring to the slowdown of metabolism through the absence of food, this takes upwards of 48 hours of fasting. Running out of a food source for energy is not a bad thing, in fact I'd say it's desirable if you're trying to oxidize fat.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3661473

I know this goes against the 6 meal plan that many people adhere too...so don't crucify me, just interested to see if anyone else eats like this.

The 6 meal per day plan was never research based to my knowledge. Someone came up with it because the thermic effect of feeding (caloric expenditure caused by eating) makes you burn calories whenever you eat. The logic was: If I burn calories by eating, I'll eat really small portions really frequently, and my metabolism will be "stoked".

Unfortunately this is just bogus. You can read why here:
www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/529002-a-compliation-on-meal-frequency

Cliffs:

You can literally eat your calories right before bed. It won't make any significant difference on your body composition or weight change in the long term. That being said, you SHOULD pay attention to personal preference and athletic performance, and your food intake including nutrient timing should align with those items.

Cliffs #2: If two meals per day is your thing, by ALL MEANS keep doing it, that's totally fine given appropriate total food consumption. You can also do a 16-8 fast where you fast the 16 hours at night and eat the 8 during the AM and that's also fine, but it's your total food intake that's governing your change in bodyweight and body composition, it's not the minute hand on the clock that's doing the work.


EDIT: Let me add in closing -- Martin has some research showing some BENEFIT to reduced meal frequency. I'm not going to claim that this is wrong by any means. I don't think there's enough research out yet to make a conclusion about whether or not a given meal frequency is arbitrarily superior, and I think it's safe to say for now, that total food consumption will be overwhelmingly most important as it pertains to body composition goals.

sundaywishes

Grabbing some popcorn for this one :drinker:

I just like a good debate :happy:

amuhlou

I am starting this off with a premise. My premise is that we are comparing different meal timings and frequencies (and number of meals) but we are keeping the SAME total amount of food for purposes of comparison. In other words, if anyone makes the claim that 2 meals is better because you eat less or that stopping your eating at 5pm makes you eat less for the day, then that's fine and dandy but that's not comparing timing, that's comparing total food intake and that's pretty obvious.

So, when I discuss the below, I'm assuming you have a big pile of food and we are comparing the effects of eating it all in 2 meals, or splitting it up over 6 meals, or eating it before 4, or whatever the case may be in the below.

I have done a bit of research on the benefits of eating two meals a day. It is my favorite way to eat - anyone else eat only breakfast and lunch, with a snack or two?

So far this is fine. This is largely a personal preference choice as there likely won't be a significant physiological difference.

The important thing being not eating after 4 or 5 (eating all calories within 8 hours of starting the day?

This is nonsense.
http://www.leangains.com/2011/06/is-late-night-eating-better-for-fat.html

Effects of different meal timing regimens:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3508745

It is very effective in losing weight, as I can eat the same calories but eat them later in the day and not lose or I can eat them before 4 and lose consistently everyday or two. A friend of mine was a biochemist and they studied it in depth. Once you body realizes it won't get any easy energy (food) it will start burning stored energy. If you eat even one calorie after your 4-5pm cut off, your body will slow down the fat burning as it thinks it is getting food.

Everything above is also nonsense. Your body accumulates fat through fat storage exceeding fat oxidation and this cannot occur in the absence of a caloric surplus. Even if you eat all of your food before bed, you'll be oxidizing fat the next day during your long waiting time between meals (remember, if you eat before bed then by default you are fasting during the day). During this fasting time your fat oxidation will offset any fat storage caused by eating that massive meal.

Late night carbs and weight loss:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475137

Effects of Ramadan fasting on body composition. (<--- late night eating, but in fairness I don't believe total energy intake was controlled here)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17909674

Favorable body composition from large evening meals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9040548

so your body doesn't slow down to save energy if it doesn't get enough food to start the active part of the day.

Your body will not slow down in the absence of food. If you're referring to the slowdown of metabolism through the absence of food, this takes upwards of 48 hours of fasting. Running out of a food source for energy is not a bad thing, in fact I'd say it's desirable if you're trying to oxidize fat.

I know this goes against the 6 meal plan that many people adhere too...so don't crucify me, just interested to see if anyone else eats like this.

The 6 meal per day plan was never research based to my knowledge. Someone came up with it because the thermic effect of feeding (caloric expenditure caused by eating) makes you burn calories whenever you eat. The logic was: If I burn calories by eating, I'll eat really small portions really frequently, and my metabolism will be "stoked".

Unfortunately this is just bogus. You can read why here:
www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/529002-a-compliation-on-meal-frequency

Cliffs:

You can literally eat your calories right before bed. It won't make any significant difference on your body composition or weight change in the long term. That being said, you SHOULD pay attention to personal preference and athletic performance, and your food intake including nutrient timing should align with those items.

Cliffs #2: If two meals per day is your thing, by ALL MEANS keep doing it, that's totally fine given appropriate total food consumption. You can also do a 16-8 fast where you fast the 16 hours at night and eat the 8 during the AM and that's also fine, but it's your total food intake that's governing your change in bodyweight and body composition, it's not the minute hand on the clock that's doing the work.


EDIT: Let me add in closing -- Martin has some research showing some BENEFIT to reduced meal frequency. I'm not going to claim that this is wrong by any means. I don't think there's enough research out yet to make a conclusion about whether or not a given meal frequency is arbitrarily superior, and I think it's safe to say for now, that total food consumption will be overwhelmingly most important as it pertains to body composition goals.

Nice synopsis.

Sidesteal

Let me add something in closing. It's not my intent to attack you and hopefully my post doesn't read that way. When I say that some of your pieces of information are "nonsense" I probably could word that better so I hope you don't take this personally.

There really is nothing wrong with your two meal per day habit. If that works for you then keep at it. My point with that post was that the notion of eating past a certain time being detrimental (especially the "one calorie" example), can be harmful information to spread because it places an artificial restriction on dieters, and believe me they already have enough restrictions to worry about.

I do realize you are just asking questions, and I hope you read the attached links in the above reply.

Good luck with your goals!

tigersword

Just like Domino's, Sidesteal delivers.

epmck11

Bookmarked this.... I already follow LeanGains, but Sidesteal just referenced every article I need in the future to cite for why I'm doing it, so much appreciated! Great reads.

lizaiza79

Let me add something in closing. It's not my intent to attack you and hopefully my post doesn't read that way. When I say that some of your pieces of information are "nonsense" I probably could word that better so I hope you don't take this personally.

There really is nothing wrong with your two meal per day habit. If that works for you then keep at it. My point with that post was that the notion of eating past a certain time being detrimental (especially the "one calorie" example), can be harmful information to spread because it places an artificial restriction on dieters, and believe me they already have enough restrictions to worry about.

I do realize you are just asking questions, and I hope you read the attached links in the above reply.

Good luck with your goals!

No offense to "nonsense" references! Thank you for the information...I am working my way through the links.

I did read the link regarding "Favorable body composition from large evening meals (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9040548)

And according to that study, you lose weight better by eating more in the morning, but maintain muscle better by eating in the evening. I think that was exactly what I was referring to.

When I get rid of the excess I want to build muscle at a greater rate than I am losing fat...but I am not there yet. At that point I predict the high morning meals and long evening fast will not work well. I still work out and build muscle, but from what I understand (correct me if I am wrong) until I get rid of the blubber I am not going to get that tone I want.

Perhaps it a case of where you are in your fitness journey?

Sidesteal

And according to that study, you lose weight better by eating more in the morning, but maintain muscle better by eating in the evening. I think that was exactly what I was referring to.

The group that lost more weight lost more lean mass. This is not desirable.

When I get rid of the excess I want to build muscle at a greater rate than I am losing fat...but I am not there yet. At that point I predict the high morning meals and long evening fast will not work well. I still work out and build muscle, but from what I understand (correct me if I am wrong) until I get rid of the blubber I am not going to get that tone I want.

Basically, keep lifting weights and eating a "reasonable" amount of total food for the day. Do this and you will lose bodyfat and retain lean mass (through protein intake and weight lifting). Large morning meals and long evening fasts should still facilitate this given proper total food intake, unless of course your meal timing interferes with your ability to perform in the gym.

lizaiza79

OK...I just read the Leangains article - wow...awesome information. Didn't take long for me to be convinced!

From the summary-

"Dietary epidemiology commonly find associations between certain meal patterns and higher BMI / body fatness. However, this association can solely be attributed to lifestyle-related factors and eating behaviors"

"Calorie-controlled studies"..."tell a much different story than the one found in dietary epidemiology. While short-term studies (15-18 days) do not find a statistically significant difference between early and late meal patterns, long-term studies (>12 weeks) show that late eating patterns produce superior results on fat loss, body composition and/or diet adherence."

Thank you so much for the info!!!

KatKatatrophic

My thoughts are...that who came up with that we had to eat "3 meals a day" and if we ate any less that'd we be "starving" ourselves?

I usually also eat 2. Most days 1 ( which was in Senior year, just dinner ). To reach my goal, each meal is about 600 calories x 2=1200. So, I find it okay. But sometimes I eat low on accident if I'm having a full day. But I also exercise and lift, so I find it absolutely okay.
If if works for you, keep going!

KettleBellHoe

2 meals a day? Don't be dumb you'll lose weight alot faster with 6 small meals a day..that way your metabolism is CONSTANTLY working, which is the whole kind of idea of a healthy metabolism, I've lost 50lbs this way and I am very healthy.

RainxPain

I only eat 2 meals a day too. Lunch and dinner. I don't usually get hungry during breakfast time anyways. I eat about 300-500 calories for a lunch, a 100-200 calories snack, and 500-700 calories for dinner. So I eat on average about 1,200-1,300 calories a day. It works for me.

RainxPain

My thoughts are...that who came up with that we had to eat "3 meals a day" and if we ate any less that'd we be "starving" ourselves?

I usually also eat 2. Most days 1 ( which was in Senior year, just dinner ). To reach my goal, each meal is about 600 calories x 2=1200. So, I find it okay. But sometimes I eat low on accident if I'm having a full day. But I also exercise and lift, so I find it absolutely okay.
If if works for you, keep going!

This.

SGT_Reg

bump