One big meal a day.

13»

Replies

  • Suzyq0756
    Suzyq0756 Posts: 2
    By eating one meal a day you are not maintaining the metabolism levels that are needed to sustain weight or weight loss. Your metabolism and blood sugars levels are dropping at a fantastic rate with this and it will throw your entire body functions out of balance.

    I have found that having a protein shake or 2 eggs microwaved in the morning with a Chobani yogurt for mid morning snack helps me a lot. I have a low fat high protein lunch in small portions and a healthy snack such as almonds or fruit w/peanut butter in the mid afternoon, and then either another protein shake, low calorie cereal or healthy low fat high protein meal at night is working great.

    I know I have not been on here as long as others, or you for that matter, but I am consistently losing since I started this in February.

    Good luck!
  • jayche
    jayche Posts: 1,128 Member
    This thread is just another example of extremism in the fitness community. As with most things, the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
    You can get by with one meal a day or six and still get results, that said both options (extremes) are not OPTIMAL.

    Just because the significance of meal timing is vastly overshadowed by the importance of total calories and macro-nutrient intake, that does not mean meal timing is completely insignificant.
  • PRMinx
    PRMinx Posts: 4,585 Member

    As I said you will find people that say it doesn't matter and people that say it does. One person off the top of my head that says it does matter is Dr Oz. he says that if you are deprived of food for longer than 12 hours, your metabolic rate can lower by 40%.

    So perhaps he's wrong? He's only a dr after all but who knows!

    RETREAT! RETREAT!

    jack-sparrow-running.gif
  • Looking4ward
    Looking4ward Posts: 23 Member
    YOU WROTE:
    "Last week was the first week I didn't lose weight since joining MFP, and I was less over on calories last week than in the previous weeks when I lost weight. Frustrated. Regardless, since joining MFP I've not stayed within my calorie for an entire week."

    ???

    If you lost weight every week for nearly a year while eating more, why did you make a change?
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    By eating one meal a day you are not maintaining the metabolism levels that are needed to sustain weight or weight loss. Your metabolism and blood sugars levels are dropping at a fantastic rate with this and it will throw your entire body functions out of balance.

    I have found that having a protein shake or 2 eggs microwaved in the morning with a Chobani yogurt for mid morning snack helps me a lot. I have a low fat high protein lunch in small portions and a healthy snack such as almonds or fruit w/peanut butter in the mid afternoon, and then either another protein shake, low calorie cereal or healthy low fat high protein meal at night is working great.

    I know I have not been on here as long as others, or you for that matter, but I am consistently losing since I started this in February.

    Good luck!
    Um.... No. Your metabolism does not drop just by only eating once a day. Your body does a fantastic job of regulating blood sugar, it does not crash (certain illnesses aside.)
  • Cese27
    Cese27 Posts: 626 Member
    28AC7A63-1144-4D62-A0A7-C86FA073A9EC-1317-000003CF44E45C64_zps90c95dff.jpg
  • da_bears10089
    da_bears10089 Posts: 1,791 Member
    I think that if i were to do IF, it would be unhealthy for the people around me. It wouldn't be pretty.
  • Wonderob
    Wonderob Posts: 1,372 Member
    This thread is just another example of extremism in the fitness community. As with most things, the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
    You can get by with one meal a day or six and still get results, that said both options (extremes) are not OPTIMAL.

    Just because the significance of meal timing is vastly overshadowed by the importance of total calories and macro-nutrient intake, that does not mean meal timing is completely insignificant.

    Who says the truth is somewhere in the middle? I agree that total calories/macros are most important but you state quite categorically that 1 meal a day and 6 meals a day is not optimal - somewhere in the middle is. Is this just another guess along the lines of what you were kind of intimating that others were doing?

    Have you any hard, substatiative evidence to suggest that 6 meals a day ISN'T optimal and that 2, 3,4 or 5 is?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • jakidb
    jakidb Posts: 1,010 Member
    I noticed you said you're staying w/i calories--what abt other areas (i.e. carbs, proteins, fats, sugars, sodium, etc.) Make sure you watch that. I know that even if I'm within my recommended calories that if I'm over in sugars or sodium, I didn't lose. Also don't be immediately discouraged--if you're trying something "different' sometimes it produces different results so just monitor yourself and make any adjustments you feel are necessary.

    Not sure if it makes a difference but I've always HEARD that your BIGGEST meal shld be breakfast. Not saying this has bn "proven", I'm just putting that out there.

    You'll do great :)
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    This thread is just another example of extremism in the fitness community. As with most things, the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
    You can get by with one meal a day or six and still get results, that said both options (extremes) are not OPTIMAL.

    Just because the significance of meal timing is vastly overshadowed by the importance of total calories and macro-nutrient intake, that does not mean meal timing is completely insignificant.

    Who says the truth is somewhere in the middle? I agree that total calories/macros are most important but you state quite categorically that 1 meal a day and 6 meals a day is not optimal - somewhere in the middle is. Is this just another guess along the lines of what you were kind of intimating that others were doing?

    Have you any hard, substatiative evidence to suggest that 6 meals a day ISN'T optimal and that 2, 3,4 or 5 is?
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985

    Meal frequency has no effect on weight loss. It does not matter. There's no such thing as an optimal number of meals. The metabolic increase you get from eating is based on total calories consumed, not number of meals eaten.
  • jayche
    jayche Posts: 1,128 Member
    This thread is just another example of extremism in the fitness community. As with most things, the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
    You can get by with one meal a day or six and still get results, that said both options (extremes) are not OPTIMAL.

    Just because the significance of meal timing is vastly overshadowed by the importance of total calories and macro-nutrient intake, that does not mean meal timing is completely insignificant.

    Who says the truth is somewhere in the middle? I agree that total calories/macros are most important but you state quite categorically that 1 meal a day and 6 meals a day is not optimal - somewhere in the middle is. Is this just another guess along the lines of what you were kind of intimating that others were doing?

    Have you any hard, substatiative evidence to suggest that 6 meals a day ISN'T optimal and that 2, 3,4 or 5 is?
    Read research done by Dr. Stuart Phillips and Dr. Layne Norton regarding protein synthesis and meal timing/frequency.
  • peckish_pomegranate
    peckish_pomegranate Posts: 242 Member
    So, I made a promise to myself with week that I would stay within my calories all week, and so far I have been, but I've also started just basically eating one big meal a day, usually lunch(ish). Is this horrible. It helps me stay within my calories and eat what I want, but I'm guessing it's not all that good for me. Last week was the first week I didn't lose weight since joining MFP, and I was less over on calories last week than in the previous weeks when I lost weight. Frustrated. Regardless, since joining MFP I've not stayed within my calorie for an entire week. Thoughts? Thanks.

    I have that problem too, since I'm short and small, my calories are pretty low (though I have an appetite like a 6ft 5in 300lb lumberjack) - I get really hungry and eat up all my calories in one sitting, then the evening is torture; dizzy, irritable, starving, weak and tired. Then you pig out or power through it feeling like crap.

    My trick is to eat lots of small snacks through the day instead of meals, work out more to get more wiggle room in your calories, and WATER WATER WATER, drink all 8 glasses per day.

    A note on eating lots of small meals as opposed to one or two big ones: It doesn't really matter when you eat your calories I think, spreading out your food intake is just for keeping your mind and body from screaming at you to eat more. I don't know why anyone would WANT to just eat one meal when it's pretty obvious our bodies are not happy that way if we're feeling hungry and miserable five hours later.
  • jayche
    jayche Posts: 1,128 Member
    Meal frequency has no effect on weight loss. It does not matter. There's no such thing as an optimal number of meals. The metabolic increase you get from eating is based on total calories consumed, not number of meals eaten.
    Weight loss doesn't always correlate with better health.
  • JossFit
    JossFit Posts: 588 Member
    I've always heard by eating only one meal a day, your metabolism isn't working as hard, slows down and thus your weight loss slows.

    I'm sure you can find some people that say it doesn't matter and some that say it does. You said it didn't work last week, so if it doesn't work this week, I'd probably change it up.


    And how the heck can you eat that much food in one sitting? I mean if it's healthy food, that's a whole lot of food to eat at one sitting.

    Not true.

    The idea that eating multiple times a day speeds your metabolism up is based on TEF (Thermic Effect of Feeding/Food). It was at one time believed that your TEF was based on meal frequency, however we now know that TEF is based on CALORIES consumed.
    If someone eats 2000 calories a day and spreads that out over 6 meals their TEF is the same as someone eating the exact same diet all at one time. Different macronutrients have varying TEF, but assuming those things are the same their TEF will be as well.


    *Regardless, I don't see why people get so up in arms about these sorts of discussions. All we can really be sure of is that there is a significant psychological factor at play when it comes to dieting and at the end of the day the best diet for anyone is the one they can ADHERE to.

    If it's not harming you, let others do as they please.
  • JossFit
    JossFit Posts: 588 Member
    I've always heard by eating only one meal a day, your metabolism isn't working as hard, slows down and thus your weight loss slows.

    I'm sure you can find some people that say it doesn't matter and some that say it does. You said it didn't work last week, so if it doesn't work this week, I'd probably change it up.


    And how the heck can you eat that much food in one sitting? I mean if it's healthy food, that's a whole lot of food to eat at one sitting.

    Your metabolism does not change because you are eating like that. I mean when I sleep I rip through 1k calories, 8+ hours of no food and I am killing calories when not awake.

    As I said you will find people that say it doesn't matter and people that say it does. One person off the top of my head that says it does matter is Dr Oz. he says that if you are deprived of food for longer than 12 hours, your metabolic rate can lower by 40%.

    So perhaps he's wrong? He's only a dr after all but who knows!

    Perhaps? That quack is wrong about everything.

    He's a cardiologist...
  • stewartcarden
    stewartcarden Posts: 126
    Id end up shooting myself.
  • Wonderob
    Wonderob Posts: 1,372 Member
    This thread is just another example of extremism in the fitness community. As with most things, the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
    You can get by with one meal a day or six and still get results, that said both options (extremes) are not OPTIMAL.

    Just because the significance of meal timing is vastly overshadowed by the importance of total calories and macro-nutrient intake, that does not mean meal timing is completely insignificant.

    Who says the truth is somewhere in the middle? I agree that total calories/macros are most important but you state quite categorically that 1 meal a day and 6 meals a day is not optimal - somewhere in the middle is. Is this just another guess along the lines of what you were kind of intimating that others were doing?

    Have you any hard, substatiative evidence to suggest that 6 meals a day ISN'T optimal and that 2, 3,4 or 5 is?
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985

    Meal frequency has no effect on weight loss. It does not matter. There's no such thing as an optimal number of meals. The metabolic increase you get from eating is based on total calories consumed, not number of meals eaten.

    Yes i agree with that - I wasn't suggesting there WAS an optimal number of meals, just questioning the poster that said the optimal number of meals was between 1 and 6
  • keychick25
    keychick25 Posts: 36 Member
    I just wanted to add that recently (unintentionally) after becoming paleo, the urge to eat has lessened so much that i am only hungry once a day. Due to my work schedule, it's easy to eat at the end of the day. It's been a month, and I lost 10lbs. 6lbs of fat & 4lbs of water. Eating once a day help me tell the difference between thirst and hunger (you'd be surprised how many people don't know the difference). I drink more water, and eat more veggies, and I feel great! Meal frequency doesn't matter, is the quality. If I hate bad foods i would have most likely gained weight. This works naturally for me. Do what works for YOU. It's that simple.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    I've always heard by eating only one meal a day, your metabolism isn't working as hard, slows down and thus your weight loss slows.

    I'm sure you can find some people that say it doesn't matter and some that say it does. You said it didn't work last week, so if it doesn't work this week, I'd probably change it up.


    And how the heck can you eat that much food in one sitting? I mean if it's healthy food, that's a whole lot of food to eat at one sitting.

    Your metabolism does not change because you are eating like that. I mean when I sleep I rip through 1k calories, 8+ hours of no food and I am killing calories when not awake.

    As I said you will find people that say it doesn't matter and people that say it does. One person off the top of my head that says it does matter is Dr Oz. he says that if you are deprived of food for longer than 12 hours, your metabolic rate can lower by 40%.

    So perhaps he's wrong? He's only a dr after all but who knows!

    Perhaps? That quack is wrong about everything.

    He's a cardiologist...
    And? That means nutrition is not his specialty. It's like having a microbiologist give lectures about deep space. Sure, they might be a scientist, but they have zero knowledge of astrophysics.
  • SoDamnHungry
    SoDamnHungry Posts: 6,998 Member
    If it works for you and you aren't starving the rest of the day, go for it. But maybe break it up into a large meal with a couple of snacks if you find yourself getting hungry. It's all about calories in vs calories out.

Categories