true or false: meal frequency / meal timing matters
Options
Replies
-
other than needing carbs to fuel my runs-no frequency/timing matters not0
-
I can't believe my eyes. Meal timing absolutely matters. Your body doesnt have some magic 24 hour clock and at the end of that period does the math and says "well look, lets take the total in and the total out and decide to make fat or not"
NO NO NO. It absolutely doesnt work like that. Your body works in the moment. If you gobble down 2000 calories in one meal and it will be converted to fat. No doubt. Then you will be miserable the rest of the day. Your body has some buffers...like the sugar stored in your liver...the best way is to feed your body as youre using calories.
Your body can only store so much "short term" energy and if you eat too much in one sitting it will be converted to fat. If you then follow up with a fast then your metabolism will slow down. You dont have to be a genius to figure this out.
Tell that to this guy...
and look up "Lean Gains"...
Ultimately, if you're in a deficit you're in a deficit...you will oxidize whatever fat is temporarily stored later that day or whatever. If you eat a maintenance level of calories you will maintain...if you eat a surplus you will gain. Meal timing and frequency is irrelevant. It's all about energy balance.0 -
I think meal timing does matter but not for the reasons usually stated. It matters for bloodsugar spikes and dips, cravings, and the tendency to gorge or make poor choices when you get yourself in a bind and need food NOW. I think eating those small meals and eating on a consistent schedule just helps to prevent moments of weakness and accidents that become bad habits quick.0
-
I can't believe my eyes. Meal timing absolutely matters. Your body doesnt have some magic 24 hour clock and at the end of that period does the math and says "well look, lets take the total in and the total out and decide to make fat or not"
NO NO NO. It absolutely doesnt work like that. Your body works in the moment. If you gobble down 2000 calories in one meal and it will be converted to fat. No doubt. Then you will be miserable the rest of the day. Your body has some buffers...like the sugar stored in your liver...the best way is to feed your body as youre using calories.
Your body can only store so much "short term" energy and if you eat too much in one sitting it will be converted to fat. If you then follow up with a fast then your metabolism will slow down. You dont have to be a genius to figure this out.
LOL...damn I've been doing it wrong..I need to stop having my 2300 cal post workout meals..brb getting fat
On a more serious note I am a true believer in the "anabolic window" so post workout is where I consume a large portion of my daily intake.
/sarcasm0 -
We all think we know what works for us "the best", but I would hazard a guess that most of us have not tried different eating styles over the course of a few weeks to see what works best.
I have just finished some tests of my own and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that eating three "meals" per day, and then a snack in between each meal works great for me. In fact, I have MyFitnessPal setup for the three major meals, plus a snack after each of those (Breakfast, Snack-AM, Lunch, Snack-PM, Dinner, Snack-Late) I generally eat 300 to 500 calories for b'fast and lunch with about 500 to 700 for dinner, and try to have about 100 to 200 calories snacks. Meals 7am, noon, 6 pm, snacks at 10am, 2:30 pm, and about 8 pm (If I have one at all, depends on how big of dinner I had. Because I've been doing this for several months, my stomach is not that large so I am really stuffed when I eat large meals, so it really boils down to what some of the other people have said. If you eat something when you start getting hungry, and don't "postpone" because you are in the middle of something, that's probably best. I choose to eat my snacks a little before/after because I just don't feel hungry, but I can assure you my weight loss is greater if I am consistently eating snacks throughout the day.
In fact, last week, I ended up eating normal for four of the days, and three of the days I reduced my calories at my meals, and had larger snacks as well, ended up going over each of those three days by about 600 to 900 calories each day, and still ended up losing weight for the week. Ultimately, just experiment and see what works for you. Don't ask others because you are going to get a variety of about 5 answers.
I am very sedentary at my job, although I do walk during my breaks and lunch for anywhere from 8 to 20 minutes. I don't workout much.0 -
We all think we know what works for us "the best", but I would hazard a guess that most of us have not tried different eating styles over the course of a few weeks to see what works best.
I have just finished some tests of my own and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that eating three "meals" per day, and then a snack in between each meal works great for me. In fact, I have MyFitnessPal setup for the three major meals, plus a snack after each of those (Breakfast, Snack-AM, Lunch, Snack-PM, Dinner, Snack-Late) I generally eat 300 to 500 calories for b'fast and lunch with about 500 to 700 for dinner, and try to have about 100 to 200 calories snacks. Meals 7am, noon, 6 pm, snacks at 10am, 2:30 pm, and about 8 pm (If I have one at all, depends on how big of dinner I had. Because I've been doing this for several months, my stomach is not that large so I am really stuffed when I eat large meals, so it really boils down to what some of the other people have said. If you eat something when you start getting hungry, and don't "postpone" because you are in the middle of something, that's probably best. I choose to eat my snacks a little before/after because I just don't feel hungry, but I can assure you my weight loss is greater if I am consistently eating snacks throughout the day.
In fact, last week, I ended up eating normal for four of the days, and three of the days I reduced my calories at my meals, and had larger snacks as well, ended up going over each of those three days by about 600 to 900 calories each day, and still ended up losing weight for the week. Ultimately, just experiment and see what works for you. Don't ask others because you are going to get a variety of about 5 answers.
I am very sedentary at my job, although I do walk during my breaks and lunch for anywhere from 8 to 20 minutes. I don't workout much.
The reasons why this works for you and meal timing matters to some individuals is more compliance and preference than anything. There is no metabolic advantage to any specific meal timing or frequency. So bottom line is: Do what helps you to feel best, comply with your plan and helps workout performance.0 -
I bet if you drank 40,000 calories of oil at once, you'd process less of that than if you drank 8,000 calories every 4 hours for a day.0
-
We all think we know what works for us "the best", but I would hazard a guess that most of us have not tried different eating styles over the course of a few weeks to see what works best.
I have just finished some tests of my own and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that eating three "meals" per day, and then a snack in between each meal works great for me. In fact, I have MyFitnessPal setup for the three major meals, plus a snack after each of those (Breakfast, Snack-AM, Lunch, Snack-PM, Dinner, Snack-Late) I generally eat 300 to 500 calories for b'fast and lunch with about 500 to 700 for dinner, and try to have about 100 to 200 calories snacks. Meals 7am, noon, 6 pm, snacks at 10am, 2:30 pm, and about 8 pm (If I have one at all, depends on how big of dinner I had. Because I've been doing this for several months, my stomach is not that large so I am really stuffed when I eat large meals, so it really boils down to what some of the other people have said. If you eat something when you start getting hungry, and don't "postpone" because you are in the middle of something, that's probably best. I choose to eat my snacks a little before/after because I just don't feel hungry, but I can assure you my weight loss is greater if I am consistently eating snacks throughout the day.
In fact, last week, I ended up eating normal for four of the days, and three of the days I reduced my calories at my meals, and had larger snacks as well, ended up going over each of those three days by about 600 to 900 calories each day, and still ended up losing weight for the week. Ultimately, just experiment and see what works for you. Don't ask others because you are going to get a variety of about 5 answers.
I am very sedentary at my job, although I do walk during my breaks and lunch for anywhere from 8 to 20 minutes. I don't workout much.
The reasons why this works for you and meal timing matters to some individuals is more compliance and preference than anything. There is no metabolic advantage to any specific meal timing or frequency. So bottom line is: Do what helps you to feel best, comply with your plan and helps workout performance.
^^^ This.
When I first started here I believed all the hype about meal timing so I was eating 6 small meals spaced out through the day. Lost weight just fine but I was eating sometimes when I really didnt want to.
Learned from reading on the forums about intermittent fasting and how people were getting good results form that. Did some research and realized neither will have a noticeable difference, with similar macro and calorie intake. Went back to eating 3 meals with a snack but dont eat breakfast until later in the morning. Lost weight at the same rate as I always had.0 -
Meal timing in the long run, for weight loss, does not matter. Sure, there are some arguable benefits of overconsuming and NEAT/TEF advantages, but that won't add up to much and usually the method of achieving these effects do not warrant the effort. However, the body is really good at homeostasis.
For example, a lot of studies conclude that metabolism is sped up by frequent eating when they show that the body expends more energy after a "meal" (thus, eating more frequently = expending energy more frequently = metabolic advantage). However, further research has shown that this energy expenditure scales with the size of the meal, and thus even if you consume less frequently, if the diet is isocaloric, both will expend over a period of time the same amount of energy. Thus, it ultimately boils down to calories in and calories out, although people will function better mentally (and physically depending on their Circadian Cycle), but will ultimately derive no superiority in long-term composition.
Athlete's, on the other hand, have to more closely monitor their timing for optimal performance (carb loading and glycogen depletion, fueling workouts, not eating too much that they are uncomfortable or eating enough they feel energized, etc.)0 -
:huh:
So, if you require 2500 calories a day to maintain your weight, but you only eat 2000 calories a day total, but all in one sitting, you'll gain weight, is that what you're saying?
I'm thinking "not"...:smokin:
Why don't you try and let me know how that works out?
You people believe what you want. Personally I can tell whether my energy is coming from stored glycogen or fat reserves. Glycogen=happy time. Fat reserves = shaky, tired, and miserable.
Lets try a little experiment---eat your normal breakfast then go run a few miles in the morning. Then do it the next day but don't eat breakfast. I can promise you if you skip breakfast youre going to be miserable running because your body has already depleted its glycogen reserves during the night, and the process to break down fat for energy will leave you feeling like crap while running. It's been a long time since I've studied the actual process but it takes longer to break down stored fat for fuel and you can feel that. You know once you've depleted your glycogen reserves.
Does it make a difference eating 6 meals or 3? I dont know. I do know from the extreme example of eating one meal a day the results won't be pleasant.0 -
:huh:
So, if you require 2500 calories a day to maintain your weight, but you only eat 2000 calories a day total, but all in one sitting, you'll gain weight, is that what you're saying?
I'm thinking "not"...:smokin:
Why don't you try and let me know how that works out?
You people believe what you want. Personally I can tell whether my energy is coming from stored glycogen or fat reserves. Glycogen=happy time. Fat reserves = shaky, tired, and miserable.
Been there, done that. Used to eat my entire daily intake in a 2 hour window. Lost weight like a mofo...0 -
false now I never eat after dinner, but that is because I have a propensity to late night binge and it's better to never start.
oops true0 -
I don't think it matters but you have to find what works for you. When I tried the 5-6 meals a day I just couldn't keep under my calorie limit - and yes, I tried to keep it all healthy stuff.
I find that in order *for me* to stay under my calorie limit I do better with three meals. Then I can space out my calories and I don't think about food all day long - which is probably why I had such a hard time staying under my calories when I tried the 5-6 meal thing.
It really does come down to calories in vs calories burned.0 -
:huh:
So, if you require 2500 calories a day to maintain your weight, but you only eat 2000 calories a day total, but all in one sitting, you'll gain weight, is that what you're saying?
I'm thinking "not"...:smokin:
Why don't you try and let me know how that works out?
You people believe what you want. Personally I can tell whether my energy is coming from stored glycogen or fat reserves. Glycogen=happy time. Fat reserves = shaky, tired, and miserable.
Lets try a little experiment---eat your normal breakfast then go run a few miles in the morning. Then do it the next day but don't eat breakfast. I can promise you if you skip breakfast youre going to be miserable running because your body has already depleted its glycogen reserves during the night, and the process to break down fat for energy will leave you feeling like crap while running. It's been a long time since I've studied the actual process but it takes longer to break down stored fat for fuel and you can feel that. You know once you've depleted your glycogen reserves.
Does it make a difference eating 6 meals or 3? I dont know. I do know from the extreme example of eating one meal a day the results won't be pleasant.
IF followers do it often. So...what was your point again?0 -
I think meal timing does matter but not for the reasons usually stated. It matters for bloodsugar spikes and dips, cravings, and the tendency to gorge or make poor choices when you get yourself in a bind and need food NOW. I think eating those small meals and eating on a consistent schedule just helps to prevent moments of weakness and accidents that become bad habits quick.
This. ^^^^^^0 -
I think meal timing does matter but not for the reasons usually stated. It matters for bloodsugar spikes and dips, cravings, and the tendency to gorge or make poor choices when you get yourself in a bind and need food NOW. I think eating those small meals and eating on a consistent schedule just helps to prevent moments of weakness and accidents that become bad habits quick.
If your pancreas is working properly your blood sugar will stay level. You may need to see a doctor for some diabetes testing. You may not be able to skip meals because you are hungry, but don't blame your blood sugar. unless you are diabetic.0 -
I think meal timing does matter but not for the reasons usually stated. It matters for bloodsugar spikes and dips, cravings, and the tendency to gorge or make poor choices when you get yourself in a bind and need food NOW. I think eating those small meals and eating on a consistent schedule just helps to prevent moments of weakness and accidents that become bad habits quick.
Well said.0 -
Strong broscience.I can't believe my eyes. Meal timing absolutely matters. Your body doesnt have some magic 24 hour clock and at the end of that period does the math and says "well look, lets take the total in and the total out and decide to make fat or not"
NO NO NO. It absolutely doesnt work like that. Your body works in the moment. If you gobble down 2000 calories in one meal and it will be converted to fat. No doubt. Then you will be miserable the rest of the day. Your body has some buffers...like the sugar stored in your liver...the best way is to feed your body as youre using calories.
Your body can only store so much "short term" energy and if you eat too much in one sitting it will be converted to fat. If you then follow up with a fast then your metabolism will slow down. You dont have to be a genius to figure this out.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I skip breakfast every morning and train fasted. Hasn't hampered my workouts or physique.
:huh:
So, if you require 2500 calories a day to maintain your weight, but you only eat 2000 calories a day total, but all in one sitting, you'll gain weight, is that what you're saying?
I'm thinking "not"...:smokin:
Why don't you try and let me know how that works out?
You people believe what you want. Personally I can tell whether my energy is coming from stored glycogen or fat reserves. Glycogen=happy time. Fat reserves = shaky, tired, and miserable.
Lets try a little experiment---eat your normal breakfast then go run a few miles in the morning. Then do it the next day but don't eat breakfast. I can promise you if you skip breakfast youre going to be miserable running because your body has already depleted its glycogen reserves during the night, and the process to break down fat for energy will leave you feeling like crap while running. It's been a long time since I've studied the actual process but it takes longer to break down stored fat for fuel and you can feel that. You know once you've depleted your glycogen reserves.
Does it make a difference eating 6 meals or 3? I dont know. I do know from the extreme example of eating one meal a day the results won't be pleasant.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I can't believe my eyes. Meal timing absolutely matters. Your body doesnt have some magic 24 hour clock and at the end of that period does the math and says "well look, lets take the total in and the total out and decide to make fat or not"
NO NO NO. It absolutely doesnt work like that. Your body works in the moment. If you gobble down 2000 calories in one meal and it will be converted to fat. No doubt. Then you will be miserable the rest of the day. Your body has some buffers...like the sugar stored in your liver...the best way is to feed your body as youre using calories.
Your body can only store so much "short term" energy and if you eat too much in one sitting it will be converted to fat. If you then follow up with a fast then your metabolism will slow down. You dont have to be a genius to figure this out.
Holy moly!
And what happens the rest of the day when you eat nothing? [Assuming that your 2,000 is your intake for the day irrespective of meal timing].
Also, it takes about 72 hours for your metabolism to start slowing down.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions