Diary advice/judgement

dsimpson112

I have been a personal trainer and nutritional 'coach' for 25 years. I am semi retired but feelI know the field extremely well. When looking at your food diary I notice two things...

1) you are not eating often enough.
2) a large portion of your meals are calorie dense.

Example: Breakfast (50-200 calories)
Snack: (none)
Lunch: (400 calories)
Snack: (none)
Dinner: (700ish calories)
Snack: (none)

You are eating the appropriate amount of daily calories, BUT, you are cramming them in and they are spaced too far apart.

Why this matters:

Your body needs fuel to function. Too much fuel? Your body stores it as fat for later use. Not enough fuel? Your body goes into its 'reserves' (stored fat) and uses it as fuel. If you wake up at 7am and eat 50-100 calories before starting your day, your body has 50-100 units of available energy (fuel) between then and the next time you eat. If your body uses those units up by 10am and you do not eat again until 12pm, it gets the rest of the fuel that it needs from its reserves (stored fat). This is obviously a good thing when you are trying to lose weight, but you will feel a little tired and sluggish until your next meal. This is the reason you eat a snack at 10am...so your blood sugar levels do not drop drastically and when noon time comes and it's time for lunch, you don't feel the need to eat 4-500 calories (or kill someone, lol)

So you skipped your 10am snack...you feel a little edgy but you're 'ok' and hey, you have been burning that stored fat you want to loose for two hours! Win, right?! Wrong, and here is why...

It's noon. You're famished! But it's lunch time! You eat 400-500 calories and your body is refueled, BUT your blood sugar has just spiked sending your body the message to "HOLD ON TO THIS FUEL!" Why? It's called "feast or famine" and what it means is that our bodies are designed to 'survive', meaning it automatically senses that it might not get food again (famine) until its next "feast" (dinner).

To complicate things, between noon and 5 pm, (depending upon what your activity level is during this time) your body may only require 300-400 calories, therefore, "holding" (or storing) any leftover calories in "reserve" (stored fat). So those glorious calories you burned between breakfast and lunch because you under ate, have just been replaced with the overage you consumed at lunch. Bummer.

Dinner time: It's been 5 hours since lunch. Your famished again! You eat 5-700 calories and your body repeats the lunch time cycle. Even working out at this point (although it's better than doing nothing) will not compensate for amount of stored fat you have taken in, and here is why...

At lunch you stored an extra 100 calories and at diner you stored an extra 300 calories totaling 400 extra calories. you go to the gym and walk/jog on the treadmill for 30 minutes and then do your weight circuit for 30 minutes, possibly burning 3-400 calories. You either broke even for the day (no weight loss) or are over by 100 calories (weight gain). Again, bummer.

You leave the gym, believing you have eaten anywhere between 1100-1300 calories for the day (perfectly acceptable in the big picture) AND you worked out burning 3-400 calories, so technically you have only consumed between 8-900 calories! Time to celebrate! (in THEORY, but after what I have just told you, you now know better hopefully)...

Celebration time! 10pm...11 shots of vodka=600 calories. Really? hummmm. I'm not judging your lifestyle, I'm judging your diet choices (and you did title your post with the word "judgement" so I don't feel I'm out of line here, but PLEASE don't take this the wrong way...I'm trying to help.) If it's not vodka, maybe it's 600 calories from somewhere else...after all, you've only eaten 800ish calories all day "technically". Therefore, "technically", even after the 600 calorie vodka bender, you've still only had 1400 calories for the day, right? And that's pretty damn good!

In reality, the 600 extra calories are simply just a repeat of the "feast/famine", "reserve/burn" cycle. But in reality, instead of breaking even in calories (no weight loss or gain) or being over by 100 in calories (slight weight gain) you are over by 6-700 calories! HUGE weight gain! Bummer? NO! MAJOR BUMMER! =(

Ok, so we've establish what the wrong eating habits are. Here is why eating smaller meals more often leads to weight loss.

THE ANSWER: (IMHO)

Breakfast: 7am - 300ish calories
Snack: 10am - 150ish calories

Between 7am and 10am your body should burn anywhere between 350-400 calories*. So you're in a slight caloric deficit, maybe 50 calories give or take. And your blood sugar is steady because you are not ravenous.

Lunch: 12pm - 300ish calories

Between 10am and 12pm your body should burn anywhere between 250-300 calories*. So you are again in a slight caloric deficit, maybe 150 calories give or take. Add that to the 50 calorie deficit between breakfast and lunch and your up to being in a 200 calorie caloric deficit. Again, blood sugar is steady.

Snack: 3pm - 150ish calories

In the three hours between lunch and snack you body should burn about 350-400 calories*. Again a deficit. This time about 100ish calories. Adding that to the 200 calorie deficit you are already in for the day and it brings you to a total of a 300 calorie deficit so far for the day.

Dinner: 5pm - 300ish calories.

Again, your body has probably burned about 300 calories between snack and dinner so maybe this time you're 'even', but you are still in a 300 calorie deficit for the day so yea for you!

NOW go to the gym and do the same work out as listed above and burn the same 300-400 calories. Now you are in a HUGE caloric deficit for the day! Somewhere around 600-700 calories for REAL this time! And yes! It is time to celebrate!

Celebration time: 10pm - 150-200 calories. This might be two light beers and a handful of pretzels or an entire bag of light microwave pop corn at the theater or in front of the television. Either way, you are still in a caloric deficit of 4-500 calories AND if you have been adding calories you have been allowed to consume for the day it equals about 1400 calories for the day...leaving you neither hungry, tired or cranky because your blood sugar has stayed even throughout the entire day.

The asterisk(*): The reason I have the asterisk placed where I do is due to something called RMR (Resting Metabolic Rate). RMR is the amount of calories (units of energy) YOUR body needs to function (breath, eliminate, pump blood, yawn, etc...you know, bodily functions basically) It's sort of technical and different for everyone based on gender, age, weight and lifestyle. There are several ways of finding what your exact RMR is, including a formula that you can find and figure out online if you like. What I have done in the example above is use a 'typical female 20-something of about 140lbs". That number is about 1200-1400 calories. In other words, I estimated. But the fact of the matter is that "meal timing" works because it is based on science.

I wrote this to help you. It is just my opinion based on 25+ years in the industry. I am not a nutritionist, but I've used this method for myself and hundreds of other successfully for years. I don;t know why I felt the need to write to you and explain this...maybe I'm feeling the need to help just for helping sake rather that getting paid. Like I said in my opening, I am semi-retired and helping people isn't about the money for me anymore.

I hope I presented this in an easy to understand manner. Feel free to email me with any questions...

Much luck to you!!!

Dee

dsimpson112@aol.com

fritzy2000

I just looked at your diary from saturday and after reading it, I'm thinking if I ate half as healthy as that I wouldn't be the weight I am today!!!

Fab healthy day, keep up the good work

alerica1

11 shots of Smirnoff vodka? Lots of empty calories there.

Cese27

I just looked over your week.

NOT ENOUGH NUTRIENTS and NOT ENOUGH CALORIES.

You need MORE WHOLE FOODS... vegetables, fruit, and protein.

EAT breakfast and try to get rid of the lattes girl and candy. You can get healthier sweets. When you start eating more whole foods, healthier foods, you won't crave the other stuff.

YOU SHOULD MEET YOUR CALORIES GOALS.

There is no need to shout at me via caps locks. I am capable of reading lower case lettering too.

I don't know what 'candy' you are referring to...I don't eat any.

So you are thicked skinned?

bathsheba_c

I know you don't want to up your calories if you're not hungry, but consider how many people are telling you to eat more and whether that many people can be wrong. If you aren't hungry, then you could eat some more calorie-dense but nutritious foods, and that would be a huge help. Consider adding more nuts, nut butters, olive oil, avocado, eggs, etc.

That said, the foods themselves that you are eating are pretty healthy. I'm noticing, though, that sometimes you tend to be getting too many of the calories from carbs and not enough from protein. This usually happens on days when you have pasta dishes, so you may want to keep an eye on that.

SandyF320

WOW Dee..... it is absolutley wonderful for you to take the time to type all that out in the effort to help!!!!! YOU ROCK!! i initially just started to read this thread just beacuse i wanted to see what the comments would be after the first few... I am soo glad i did. If any of us were "on the fence" about eating that many calories..and not eating so many at the same time.... you have certainly put the facts into a perspective that we can all understand and do everyday!!! And since my day just started I will be revisiting my food diary and now making educated changes to keep my body fueled and happy!!! Thank you Thank you Thank you!!! I hope you don't mind that i friend you..... lol

beadalicious

I think your calories are alright on most days, but metabolism is a tricky thing. I also dont eat more than 1000 calories on weekdays, but I stick to high protein/low carb meals and snacks. It really helps keep the hunger down, and LOTS of water! I've had kidney stones so my doctor insists on a gallon of water a day and exercise if I'm going to maintain a high protein diet.
I came across a website on here that I found pretty motivational. It's by a member that logs her successes and everything else inbetween! Something to check out if your interested.

http://www.makefatcry.com/

Great job so far though, Keep it up!!!

xarge

I have been a personal trainer and nutritional 'coach' for 25 years. I am semi retired but feelI know the field extremely well. When looking at your food diary I notice two things...

1) you are not eating often enough.
2) a large portion of your meals are calorie dense.

(...)

I appreciate the effort you've put into writing that but 3 small meals 3 snacks eating approach for burning fat has absolutely no scientific basis. This is one of the recent studies:

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/retrieve/pii/S1550413112001891

Highlights
Time-restricted feeding improves clock and nutrient sensor functions
tRF prevents obesity, diabetes, and liver diseases in mice on a high-fat diet
Nutrient type and time of feeding determine liver metabolome and nutrient homeostasis
tRF raises bile acid production and energy expenditure and reduces inflammation
Summary

While diet-induced obesity has been exclusively attributed to increased caloric intake from fat, animals fed a high-fat diet (HFD) ad libitum (ad lib) eat frequently throughout day and night, disrupting the normal feeding cycle. To test whether obesity and metabolic diseases result from HFD or disruption of metabolic cycles, we subjected mice to either ad lib or time-restricted feeding (tRF) of a HFD for 8 hr per day. Mice under tRF consume equivalent calories from HFD as those with ad lib access yet are protected against obesity, hyperinsulinemia, hepatic steatosis, and inflammation and have improved motor coordination. The tRF regimen improved CREB, mTOR, and AMPK pathway function and oscillations of the circadian clock and their target genes' expression. These changes in catabolic and anabolic pathways altered liver metabolome and improved nutrient utilization and energy expenditure. We demonstrate in mice that tRF regimen is a nonpharmacological strategy against obesity and associated diseases.

The rats on tRF are restricted to nighttime feeding only.

If you want to see the effects on human samples (no offense!), you can check the Intermittent Fasting group here for very successful stories.

Sidesteal

I have been a personal trainer and nutritional 'coach' for 25 years. I am semi retired but feelI know the field extremely well. When looking at your food diary I notice two things...

1) you are not eating often enough.
2) a large portion of your meals are calorie dense.

(...)

I appreciate the effort you've put into writing that but 3 small meals 3 snacks eating approach for burning fat has absolutely no scientific basis.

^ Just chiming in to further support the above sentence, which I believe is absolutely correct. Feeding frequency does not effect net expenditure.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/529002-a-compliation-on-meal-frequency (<--- referenced post)

robin52077

Be brutally honest, I am thick skinned.

TavistockToad

I will not up my calories because I'm not hungry and I'm looking to lose weight so its actually nonsensical to me to eat more food just for the sake of it.

So why have u asked for feedback that u don't want? Everyone else is right, you dont eat enough

runzalot81

I took a look over the last week.

-Too much vodka. 600 calories on a 1200 calorie diet. Can't be good!
-Too many fluffy coffee drinks. Equals no nutrition. BTW, I love fluffy coffee drinks but I rarely drink them anymore.
-Not enough sodium.
-And probably not enough of any and all nutrients. Go into your Reports and take a good look at your vitamins and minerals.

You might feel fine now, but it's not going to last. No need to frustrate yourself. Is this an eating style you can stick to forever?

If you're working out, you need more nutrients.

heddy90

^ Just chiming in to further support the above sentence, which I believe is absolutely correct. Feeding frequency does not effect net expenditure.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/529002-a-compliation-on-meal-frequency (<--- referenced post)

And I'm agreeing with this again. It takes A LOT to screw up your metabolism, you have to be seriously ill or something. Our bodies aren't THAT fragile, that the metabolism goes crazy over nothing.

Lift_This_

I will not up my calories because I'm not hungry and I'm looking to lose weight so its actually nonsensical to me to eat more food just for the sake of it.

I understand not eating when you are not hungry, but MFP already creates a calorie deficit for you.

I'm looking to lose weight too.....i started at 1200 calories and when i was not losing weight I up'ed them, making sure i worked out just as hard and i eat a lot and have lost almost 60 pounds....i can't say the same for everyone....but it works.

also, eat more fruits and veggies!!! lattes are crap.