Eating once a day?

So I actually struggle with this very thing! With eating once a day vs smaller meals throughout the day one is definitely better than the other. On the one hand calories are calories and if you stay within your net goal for the day you will still see results no matter what. On the other, if you can break up your calories not just into 3 meals but actually 5-6 meals you are boosting your metabolism and the results will not only be greater it is also just all around better for your body (its a glycemic index thing).

I struggle with the 5-6 meals for two reasons: first I just don't have an appetite for the first half of the day and second because I've found it is sometimes easier for me to exceed my calorie limit this way if I'm not careful. (Its hard being single and having food be such a social activity with friends!)

My advice would be for you to try the 5-6 meals but keep your meals in the morning and afternoon lower-calorie. Then you can have more wiggle room for a bigger dinner or whatever later in the day but make sure you don't eat too late (generally want to have at least three hours between last meal and bedtime.) Goodluck!!! Add me if you want a friend for support

Here are two sources I found that explain that intermittent fasting is fine. Here they didn't really find that intermittent fasting was better than continuous eating, but let me repeat, it is not detrimental. I'll repeat this again, while standing on my tippy toes hoping those people who keep repeating the oft-quoted, completely unsubstantiated claims about why you need to eat more to stoke the metabolism or whatever iteration people are spouting. Calories burned are proportional to the amount eaten, so yeah, you will start burning calories digesting food earlier if you eat earlier, but if you ate all your calories in one meal, it would just be one huge spike instead of a bunch of small spikes. The total amount of calories burned digesting the food will be the same.



Menopause. 2012 Aug;19(8):870-876.
Short- and long-term effects of continuous versus intermittent restrictive diet approaches on body composition and the metabolic profile in overweight and obese postmenopausal women: a pilot study.
Arguin H, Dionne IJ, Sénéchal M, Bouchard DR, Carpentier AC, Ardilouze JL, Tremblay A, Leblanc C, Brochu M.
Source
From the 1Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Division of Kinesiology, Laval University, Quebec, Quebec, Canada; 2Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; 3Research Centre on Aging, Social Services and Health Centre, University Institute of Geriatrics of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; 4Faculty of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; and 5Centre de Recherche Clinique Étienne-Le Bel, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (CHUS), Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this study was to compare changes in body composition and the metabolic profile between women taking an intermittent diet (ID) and women taking a continuous diet (CD).
METHODS:
Twenty-five obese postmenopausal women were randomized to an ID (n = 13) or a CD (n = 12). In the ID, 5-week energy restriction periods were followed by 5-week weight stabilization periods. In the CD, 15 weeks of energy restriction was followed by 5 weeks of weight stabilization. Outcome measures before, during, and after weight loss, as well as after a 1-year follow-up, were body weight and composition, waist circumference, resting metabolic rate, and fasting lipid and glucose levels.
RESULTS:
Body weight, waist circumference, percentage fat mass, and fat mass decreased significantly and similarly in both groups (P < 0.0001). Both groups showed similar overall decreases in plasma total cholesterol and triglycerides (all P < 0.05). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol improved significantly in the CD group only, whereas fasting glucose decreased significantly in the ID group only. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and resting metabolic rate remained stable in both groups. Fasting plasma triglyceride and glucose levels were the only metabolic variables to further improve after the fifth week of the protocol. At the 1-year follow-up, both interventions were associated with successful and similar weight loss maintenance and improvements in fasting plasma glucose levels.
CONCLUSIONS:
The ID resulted in similar short- and long-term changes in body composition and metabolic profile compared with a CD. Most improvements occurred during the first 5 weeks of treatment in both interventions.

nt J Obes (Lond). 2011 May;35(5):714-27. Epub 2010 Oct 5.
The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: a randomized trial in young overweight women.
Harvie MN, Pegington M, Mattson MP, Frystyk J, Dillon B, Evans G, Cuzick J, Jebb SA, Martin B, Cutler RG, Son TG, Maudsley S, Carlson OD, Egan JM, Flyvbjerg A, Howell A.
Source
Genesis Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. michelle.harvie@manchester.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The problems of adherence to energy restriction in humans are well known.
OBJECTIVE:
To compare the feasibility and effectiveness of intermittent continuous energy (IER) with continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other metabolic disease risk markers.
DESIGN:
Randomized comparison of a 25% energy restriction as IER (∼ 2710 kJ/day for 2 days/week) or CER (∼ 6276 kJ/day for 7 days/week) in 107 overweight or obese (mean (± s.d.) body mass index 30.6 (± 5.1) kg m(-2)) premenopausal women observed over a period of 6 months. Weight, anthropometry, biomarkers for breast cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dementia risk; insulin resistance (HOMA), oxidative stress markers, leptin, adiponectin, insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 and IGF binding proteins 1 and 2, androgens, prolactin, inflammatory markers (high sensitivity C-reactive protein and sialic acid), lipids, blood pressure and brain-derived neurotrophic factor were assessed at baseline and after 1, 3 and 6 months.
RESULTS:
Last observation carried forward analysis showed that IER and CER are equally effective for weight loss: mean (95% confidence interval ) weight change for IER was -6.4 (-7.9 to -4.8) kg vs -5.6 (-6.9 to -4.4) kg for CER (P-value for difference between groups = 0.4). Both groups experienced comparable reductions in leptin, free androgen index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, total and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and increases in sex hormone binding globulin, IGF binding proteins 1 and 2. Reductions in fasting insulin and insulin resistance were modest in both groups, but greater with IER than with CER; difference between groups for fasting insulin was -1.2 (-1.4 to -1.0) μU ml(-1) and for insulin resistance was -1.2 (-1.5 to -1.0) μU mmol(-1) l(-1) (both P = 0.04).
CONCLUSION:
IER is as effective as CER with regard to weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other health biomarkers, and may be offered as an alternative equivalent to CER for weight loss and reducing disease risk.

Here are two sources I found that explain that intermittent fasting is fine. Here they didn't really find that intermittent fasting was better than continuous eating, but let me repeat, it is not detrimental. I'll repeat this again, while standing on my tippy toes hoping those people who keep repeating the oft-quoted, completely unsubstantiated claims about why you need to eat more to stoke the metabolism or whatever iteration people are spouting. Calories burned are proportional to the amount eaten, so yeah, you will start burning calories digesting food earlier if you eat earlier, but if you ate all your calories in one meal, it would just be one huge spike instead of a bunch of small spikes. The total amount of calories burned digesting the food will be the same.



Menopause. 2012 Aug;19(8):870-876.
Short- and long-term effects of continuous versus intermittent restrictive diet approaches on body composition and the metabolic profile in overweight and obese postmenopausal women: a pilot study.
Arguin H, Dionne IJ, Sénéchal M, Bouchard DR, Carpentier AC, Ardilouze JL, Tremblay A, Leblanc C, Brochu M.
Source
From the 1Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Division of Kinesiology, Laval University, Quebec, Quebec, Canada; 2Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; 3Research Centre on Aging, Social Services and Health Centre, University Institute of Geriatrics of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; 4Faculty of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; and 5Centre de Recherche Clinique Étienne-Le Bel, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (CHUS), Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this study was to compare changes in body composition and the metabolic profile between women taking an intermittent diet (ID) and women taking a continuous diet (CD).
METHODS:
Twenty-five obese postmenopausal women were randomized to an ID (n = 13) or a CD (n = 12). In the ID, 5-week energy restriction periods were followed by 5-week weight stabilization periods. In the CD, 15 weeks of energy restriction was followed by 5 weeks of weight stabilization. Outcome measures before, during, and after weight loss, as well as after a 1-year follow-up, were body weight and composition, waist circumference, resting metabolic rate, and fasting lipid and glucose levels.
RESULTS:
Body weight, waist circumference, percentage fat mass, and fat mass decreased significantly and similarly in both groups (P < 0.0001). Both groups showed similar overall decreases in plasma total cholesterol and triglycerides (all P < 0.05). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol improved significantly in the CD group only, whereas fasting glucose decreased significantly in the ID group only. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and resting metabolic rate remained stable in both groups. Fasting plasma triglyceride and glucose levels were the only metabolic variables to further improve after the fifth week of the protocol. At the 1-year follow-up, both interventions were associated with successful and similar weight loss maintenance and improvements in fasting plasma glucose levels.
CONCLUSIONS:
The ID resulted in similar short- and long-term changes in body composition and metabolic profile compared with a CD. Most improvements occurred during the first 5 weeks of treatment in both interventions.

nt J Obes (Lond). 2011 May;35(5):714-27. Epub 2010 Oct 5.
The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: a randomized trial in young overweight women.
Harvie MN, Pegington M, Mattson MP, Frystyk J, Dillon B, Evans G, Cuzick J, Jebb SA, Martin B, Cutler RG, Son TG, Maudsley S, Carlson OD, Egan JM, Flyvbjerg A, Howell A.
Source
Genesis Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. michelle.harvie@manchester.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The problems of adherence to energy restriction in humans are well known.
OBJECTIVE:
To compare the feasibility and effectiveness of intermittent continuous energy (IER) with continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other metabolic disease risk markers.
DESIGN:
Randomized comparison of a 25% energy restriction as IER (∼ 2710 kJ/day for 2 days/week) or CER (∼ 6276 kJ/day for 7 days/week) in 107 overweight or obese (mean (± s.d.) body mass index 30.6 (± 5.1) kg m(-2)) premenopausal women observed over a period of 6 months. Weight, anthropometry, biomarkers for breast cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dementia risk; insulin resistance (HOMA), oxidative stress markers, leptin, adiponectin, insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 and IGF binding proteins 1 and 2, androgens, prolactin, inflammatory markers (high sensitivity C-reactive protein and sialic acid), lipids, blood pressure and brain-derived neurotrophic factor were assessed at baseline and after 1, 3 and 6 months.
RESULTS:
Last observation carried forward analysis showed that IER and CER are equally effective for weight loss: mean (95% confidence interval ) weight change for IER was -6.4 (-7.9 to -4.8) kg vs -5.6 (-6.9 to -4.4) kg for CER (P-value for difference between groups = 0.4). Both groups experienced comparable reductions in leptin, free androgen index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, total and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and increases in sex hormone binding globulin, IGF binding proteins 1 and 2. Reductions in fasting insulin and insulin resistance were modest in both groups, but greater with IER than with CER; difference between groups for fasting insulin was -1.2 (-1.4 to -1.0) μU ml(-1) and for insulin resistance was -1.2 (-1.5 to -1.0) μU mmol(-1) l(-1) (both P = 0.04).
CONCLUSION:
IER is as effective as CER with regard to weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other health biomarkers, and may be offered as an alternative equivalent to CER for weight loss and reducing disease risk.

This - meal timing should be based on preference not some misunderstood idea that eating x amount of times a a day 'stokes you metabolism'

My husband only eats once a day. Not because we dont have food he just doesnt get hungry often. He tried eating more often due to his medication needing to be taken with food, but he finds if he tries to eat anything before 1-2pm he just throws it back up, doctors arent worried about it, so nor are we. I think everyone is different, if you can survive on one meal a day go for it MFP says i should eat between 1600-1300 but i struggle to eat 800 most days and still have 3 big meals! Just listen to your body, if it needs more food then eat, if not then just carry on as normal. Just maybe take vitamin suppliments if you arent already to make sure your getting them ok