true or false: meal frequency / meal timing matters
Ortax
Posts: 98
To me meal frequency and meal timing doesn't matter. What matters is the amount of calories you burn / consume by the end of the day.
Sometimes I hear people say that you should eat 5 or 6 small meals a day to keep your metabolism going. Or that you should never eat right before you sleep.
Sometimes I hear people say that you should eat 5 or 6 small meals a day to keep your metabolism going. Or that you should never eat right before you sleep.
0
Replies
-
I would say true. Meal timing does not matter
However compliance is really the key. People have their quirks, some need their calories early in the day, some need them later. Some need them evenly spaced out. It's all about compliance in my opinion. The 24 hour clock does not matter. Or even traditional timing of meals. It's and individual thing.0 -
I agree that meal timing does not matter. It is calories in vs calories out. Eating frequently does not increase your metabloism.0
-
I can't get a real answer either.
One study says 5 to 6 little meals builds your metabolism, but you are burning off sugar instead of fat because it's getting it's energy from the food.
Another study says wait 5 to 6 hours in-between meals with 3 main meals because it triggers your body to start burning off fat from your cells instead of food.
I'm going with the idea that you eat more in the morning than afternoon as I think there is a lot of studies show your metabolism is higher in the morning.0 -
I would say true. Meal timing does not matter
However compliance is really the key. People have their quirks, some need their calories early in the day, some need them later. Some need them evenly spaced out. It's all about compliance in my opinion. The 24 hour clock does not matter. Or even traditional timing of meals. It's and individual thing.
agree
and the only reason you shouldn't eat right before you go to sleep is because that is an excellent way to give yourself heartburn -- digesting and lying supine do not mix well.0 -
Lots of people assert that NET CALORIES = CALORIES CONSUMED MINUS CALORIES BURNED.
But I for one find that for me, when I can eat 6 small meals a day versus a smaller number of larger meals, I have the best results.
On weekdays, I have a quick meal, hit the gym, have a small post workout meal, and head to work where I have 3 more meals spread throughout the day. (2 of those meals consist of half a sandwich I prepared before leaving home and a portion of fruit or carrot/celery sticks, another is either jerky or string cheese with another fruit/veggie). After work I have small portions for dinner with the family.
During the weekends, because I'm home with the family and I need to plan around what their needs/wants are, I tend to have fewer larger meals. The overall calories I consume are the same as during the week, but I tend to have better results on the scale during the week when those calories are more spread out. (And I do find the time to hit the gym on the weekends too.)
But that's what my body seems to do and all of us are different. If whatever someone is doing is working for THEM, I would never try to discourage them or try to convince them they aren't doing things right.0 -
I've always heard so many sides to this but have decided to just eat when I'm hungry, and not to eat to the point where I'm stuffed, just full. So I try to keep myself at a state of being content. Not where my belly hurts from being full or where it hurts from being hungry. Its hard to balance because you have to really listen to your body and it is really hard for me to always have food handy when I need it but I just try to plan ahead.0
-
I dont know what works better, but at least for me it works better to just eat when im hungry, if i "have" to eat 5-6 times a day (i have tried that) all i can think about the hole day is food, what should i eat next, when is my next meal and so on. But I just keep my calories intake inside my limits no matter how many meals i have in the day and i have lost 56 lbs that way. But i have heard so many sides that I cant say which work better.0
-
Science agrees with you, so eat as many or as few meals as you would like a day, at whatever time(s) you want.0
-
There is so much spurious information about weight loss it's not even funny. From what I can determine, the only thing that actually really matters for real is the ratio of calories you consume to the calories you expend. Everything else has a negligible effect, if it has any effect at all. But to hear people tell it around here, you'll be completely unable to lose weight unless you drink cabbage water, lift weights, or eat only this or that macronutrient each day. Bullfeathers. Count calories. Eat fewer calories than your body uses. Lose weight. Why is something so simple being made so complicated? Ah, because people want an easy, fun, quick way to lose weight, I forgot. :huh: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.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.
: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:0 -
Calories and deficits matter when it comes to losing weight. I'm not going to stress myself out with timing my meals just because someone else, with a different lifestyle than my own, swears by it. I'm losing weight because I eat and exercise in a way that creates a deficit, not because of the size or timing of my meals. I ate lunch at 3pm today because I didn't get a chance to eat breakfast until 10-11am. So what?0
-
I would say true. Meal timing does not matter
However compliance is really the key. People have their quirks, some need their calories early in the day, some need them later. Some need them evenly spaced out. It's all about compliance in my opinion. The 24 hour clock does not matter. Or even traditional timing of meals. It's and individual thing.
agree
and the only reason you shouldn't eat right before you go to sleep is because that is an excellent way to give yourself heartburn -- digesting and lying supine do not mix well.
This on both accounts!^
Meal timing does not matter........and acid reflux is a pain in the a**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.
Converting energy from food into fat isn't anything special and certainly not to be feared - the same way that converting fat stores back into energy for use to fuel your bodily functions and exercise is a totally normal part of how your body works on a daily basis.
Weight loss is governed by calorie balance over a period of time, that's it - simple.
Why do you think we store excess energy "in the moment" if we can't then use it later?0 -
For me, I eat all day to keep my blood sugar pretty stable and to prevent myself from becoming overwhelmingly hungry and making poor choices. I think it depends a lot on your own body and your particular food issues. I tend to feel bloated and lethargic if I eat big meals. I feel great if I am running on a little something all the time and my blood sugar is more even. The point is, do what works for you!
It doesn't matter if there is scientifically no difference in when you eat if one way of eating is more difficult for you to maintain than another way. I know lots of people who do well with just eating 3 meals per day, no snacks, as a behavioral modification.0 -
For me timing does matter. I think (as with most weight loss topics) it person specific. Just goes with what works best for you!0
-
true0
-
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.
This made me chuckle IRL.
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.
You're basically constantly going through periods of fat storage and fat oxidation. The only thing that matters is the difference between storage and oxidation over the course of time. This is governed by energy balance, not meal timing.
Even if you eat all of your calories in 1 big meal, lets say before bed. You store a bunch of fat after the meal but you also spent the entire day oxidizing fat because you didn't eat.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.
But you will only accumulate fat if you are exceeding your energy needs. Any acute fat storage will be oxidized later for fuel if you're in an energy deficit. Regardless of meal frequency.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.
Fasting has actually been shown (research is limited) to slightly accelerate metabolic rate, not reduce it. Slowdown occurs after multiple-day fasts, not intra-day fasts.0 -
To me meal frequency and meal timing doesn't matter. What matters is the amount of calories you burn / consume by the end of the day.
Sometimes I hear people say that you should eat 5 or 6 small meals a day to keep your metabolism going. Or that you should never eat right before you sleep.
Never, absolutely never eat before jumping on the scale!!!! It will most definitely break...0 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions