Diet Review
Replies
-
I've already posted it somewhere else but you should ditch snacks and put the carrots with your lunch. Seriously, if you have the standard 3 meals a day (although you can have the pre workout if you lack energy) you'll lose more weight, increase your metabolism and have better control of your glucose.
My other recommendation would be to stop having yogurt if you are having the store brought yogurt. The good bacteria is already dead and you really don't get much benefit out of it. Although if you like yogurt then ignore that haha. I'd advise some steel-cut oats or oat groats with berries. Good breakfast. Oat groats has omega 3s (if anyone doesn't believe me check out it out online), has protein and has carbohydrates. The berries, blue berries in particular, will keep you full and are rich in antioxidants.
Despite what some might think also try have the majority of your carbohydrates at night and the rest after your workout and the little in the morning. Having your carbohydrates at night helps you lose weight faster I'm not making that up.
Hope I helped
Do you have references to back this up? Because I don't know if it matters if you eat snacks or not, depending on each person's personal preferences. I myself cannot go from lunch until after work without a snack, if I plan on going to the gym after work. Otherwise, I feel woozy. Again, that's my personal preference. Everyone needs to find what is right for them.0 -
I don't think I did a great job of explaining all of this-- I was in a bit of a hurry when I typed it, and should have taken more care with it. The yogurt I eat is this brand called Noosa, and I eat the 8 oz size (which is a lot of yogurt, haha). Depending on the flavor, it has anywhere from 270-320 calories- it's not like one of those 80 calorie yoplait lights. Sorry for the confusion! I also keep the hard boiled eggs with me at work, and if I get hungry between breakfast and lunch I'll have one as a snack.
Also, I really do enjoy the healthy foods, but I don't restrict myself from anything as I know that's a recipe for a binge-ing disaster. If I'm craving something I consider bad, I'll eat it in moderation (we had KFC for lunch Tuesday). I don't plan on making myself miserable by denying simple pleasures. Again, this is just a sample of an ideal day of eating- my main goal here was to make sure that I was giving my body enough protein/calories/fat to maintain muscle mass while still losing weight. I completely understand calories in/calories out doesn't care where the calories come from, but am aiming for more of an all around health goal, which includes heart health, etc as well as weight loss. Anyway, thank you all again, I think this is more than sufficient.
-Ashley0 -
This is not true. Meal timing and eating/not eating snacks as nothing to do with weight loss.I've already posted it somewhere else but you should ditch snacks and put the carrots with your lunch. Seriously, if you have the standard 3 meals a day (although you can have the pre workout if you lack energy) you'll lose more weight, increase your metabolism and have better control of your glucose.
This is silly. No food is good or bad.My other recommendation would be to stop having yogurt if you are having the store brought yogurt. The good bacteria is already dead and you really don't get much benefit out of it. Although if you like yogurt then ignore that haha. I'd advise some steel-cut oats or oat groats with berries. Good breakfast. Oat groats has omega 3s (if anyone doesn't believe me check out it out online), has protein and has carbohydrates. The berries, blue berries in particular, will keep you full and are rich in antioxidants.
Not true either.Despite what some might think also try have the majority of your carbohydrates at night and the rest after your workout and the little in the morning. Having your carbohydrates at night helps you lose weight faster I'm not making that up.0 -
Yep I have refrences this is straight from my website:
There was a study done on healthy males where one group ate three meals, while the other ate 14. At the end of the study the group that ate the three meals had increased satiety (felt fuller) but they decreased their hunger cravings throughout the day. Plus their Resting metabolic rate was increased in the three meal group vs the 14 meal group. Quoting the study: “Glucose and insulin profiles showed greater fluctuations, but a lower AUC of glucose in the LFr (low frequency) diet compared with the HFr (high frequency) diet”. This means that the glucose ratings in the 3 meal group compared with the 14 meal group was actually lower.
Refrences
Munsters, M.J.M., Saris, W.H.M. (2012). Effects of meal frequency on metabolic profiles and substrate partitioning in lean healthy males. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.00386320 -
I can appreciate by the way that everyone needs to find their happy medium and there is benefits of eating after your training to replenish your glycogen stores as well as help start the repair process. The snacking thing however, putting science aside, is in my opinion counter-productive for losing weight. When you cut calories you'll be eating smaller and smaller meals. 6 rabbit meals a day is not going to do so well. Eating 3-4 meals a day that is decent sized will be much more beneficial in the long run. Just personal experience with myself and training others0
-
One more thing! Never in the statement did I say that calories never mattered. They DO! It's a HUGE part of the equation! Any nutritionist (such as myself) will tell you that, and anyone who says calories don't matter and eat unlimited amounts of (let's put a new fad...chicken bones?) doesn't understand energy expenditure.
If anyone is interested however, there's another study I can refrence that says you should eat the majority of your carbohydrates at night. The calories between the two groups were the same and this is a controlled clinical study. The group that ate 80% of their carbohydrate calories at night lose 20% more weight than the other group who consumed their calories during the day.
What does this all tell you? That calories matter but other factors can make one have an easier time losing fat. Don't even get me started on your leptin stores haha. Anyway Check out the refrence I listed for yourself. It's a CLINICAL CONTROLLED study.0 -
Yep I have refrences this is straight from my website:
There was a study done on healthy males where one group ate three meals, while the other ate 14. At the end of the study the group that ate the three meals had increased satiety (felt fuller) but they decreased their hunger cravings throughout the day. Plus their Resting metabolic rate was increased in the three meal group vs the 14 meal group. Quoting the study: “Glucose and insulin profiles showed greater fluctuations, but a lower AUC of glucose in the LFr (low frequency) diet compared with the HFr (high frequency) diet”. This means that the glucose ratings in the 3 meal group compared with the 14 meal group was actually lower.
Refrences
Munsters, M.J.M., Saris, W.H.M. (2012). Effects of meal frequency on metabolic profiles and substrate partitioning in lean healthy males. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038632
I just read the study and it doesn't directly correlate a tie between meal frequency and weight loss. As noted in the study below from the NIH, there may be a tie in MF and hunger, which may or may not lead to increase caloric consumption. As noted in the below NIH study, here is the conclusion:
"We conclude that increasing meal frequency from three to six per day has no significant effect on 24-h fat oxidation, but may increase hunger and the desire to eat."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23404961
If you want to talk confirmation bias, we can past the entire conclusion
"In conclusion, glucose and insulin profiles showed greater fluctuations, but a lower AUC of glucose in the LFr diet compared with the HFr diet. The higher peaks and subsequently lower troughs of insulin in the LFr diet did not lead to a higher fat oxidation as hypothesized. RMR and appetite control increased in the LFr diet, which can be relevant for body weight control on the long term. However, this was studied for one day in young healthy males, which are very metabolic flexible. Therefore, populations at risk related to substrate partitioning and long-term effects have to be studied before firm conclusions can be made about the mechanistic effects of meal frequency on the metabolic profile and substrate partitioning."
Essentially, your study does NOT apply to the normal population where as, the NIH study does.0 -
Yep I have refrences this is straight from my website:
There was a study done on healthy males where one group ate three meals, while the other ate 14. At the end of the study the group that ate the three meals had increased satiety (felt fuller) but they decreased their hunger cravings throughout the day. Plus their Resting metabolic rate was increased in the three meal group vs the 14 meal group. Quoting the study: “Glucose and insulin profiles showed greater fluctuations, but a lower AUC of glucose in the LFr (low frequency) diet compared with the HFr (high frequency) diet”. This means that the glucose ratings in the 3 meal group compared with the 14 meal group was actually lower.
Refrences
Munsters, M.J.M., Saris, W.H.M. (2012). Effects of meal frequency on metabolic profiles and substrate partitioning in lean healthy males. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038632
I just read the study and it doesn't directly correlate a tie between meal frequency and weight loss. As noted in the study below from the NIH, there may be a tie in MF and hunger, which may or may not lead to increase caloric consumption. As noted in the below NIH study, here is the conclusion:
"We conclude that increasing meal frequency from three to six per day has no significant effect on 24-h fat oxidation, but may increase hunger and the desire to eat."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23404961
If you want to talk confirmation bias, we can past the entire conclusion
"In conclusion, glucose and insulin profiles showed greater fluctuations, but a lower AUC of glucose in the LFr diet compared with the HFr diet. The higher peaks and subsequently lower troughs of insulin in the LFr diet did not lead to a higher fat oxidation as hypothesized. RMR and appetite control increased in the LFr diet, which can be relevant for body weight control on the long term. However, this was studied for one day in young healthy males, which are very metabolic flexible. Therefore, populations at risk related to substrate partitioning and long-term effects have to be studied before firm conclusions can be made about the mechanistic effects of meal frequency on the metabolic profile and substrate partitioning."
Essentially, your study does NOT apply to the normal population where as, the NIH study does.
Thanks for taking the time to read the study and even providing me with another study a recent one too! well done!
Here's why I said that it will help weight loss:
The feeling of fullness. When one is more full one can control their cravings more and one can eat less, and in turn have an easier time losing weight right? The study I provided did show that. Why wouldn't it be for the general population? It's a good enough study to show that it is.
in the study you provided it has had my exact experience that "increasing meal frequency from three to six per day has no significant effect on 24-h fat oxidation, but may increase hunger and the desire to eat" <<that is a quote straight from the study you showed me.
Let me be clear because I seem to cause a stir and I apologize. Eating less meals has obviously no magical effect on fat loss in terms of fat oxidation. It does however have an effect in terms of feeling fuller for longer, and helping people control their eating habits by decreasing the desire to eat more. This is what I really wanted to drive home.
My cliff notes are these
Eating less does mean more fat loss in the long run by keeping one on track by making them feel fuller
Eating more will make one have an increased desire to eat more
Eating more does NOT have any metabolic benefit to losing more fat
Eating less CAN in fact be better for glucose control
Take what you will of what I presented. I personally have my own opinion based on experience as well as that study0 -
You have to keep in mind that hunger is relative to a person. Many of us eat 6 to 8 times a day and are very successful.... some of us do better with interim fasting and are more successful. Essentially, you have to find what works better. I have tried IF and found it was miserable for me. My body struggles when I workout fasted as well. So you can recommend eating only 3x a day because there is nothing wrong but be clear that there isnt a benefit outside of hunger control. The bigger thing is understanding the importance of protein and fats to increase satiety and fueling a body for workouts. But I can tell you blanket statements on this board dont fly because many are relative to a individual.0
-
Something we can both agree on is that we were both miserable with intermittent fasting and I personally wouldn't recommend that way of eating. We both have given studies and I guess it's up to everyone to experiment for themselves which is better for them. I would recommend 3 meals a day no more no less. It helps everyone get the variety with foods they need and is good enough to keep everyone fuller, and it is from experience from countless people that anyone who has eaten 6+ meals a day has done better eating the standard 3. I encourage everyone to try! To each their own though I'm just stating my opinion as are you
You're also right about protein and fats being another topic for satiety but guess we'll save that for another thread haha.0 -
80% of you are VERY incorrect. I diet people for a living. I practise what i preach.
Foods DO matter. You can adopt the IIFYM mindset and implement it in MODERATION. But if you eat "whatever" you want… you will NOT hit your micro's and likely you fibre.
You could eat 1200 calories of whatever & be hungry all day. OR eat 900 calories of "clean" foods and 300 of "whatever" and feel full.
Eating 3-6 meals a day DOES improve your metabolism during waking hours. The benefit is minimal, but it's there. It's also good for active people… to ensure a constant supply of energy is spread. IE DO NOT EAT ALL YOUR CARBS at night. Post workout and the rest spread evenly (more towards your more active times) would be beneficial to your wellbeing.
in terms of your diet, I think your likely underdoing your carbs … aslong as your calories are controlled .. try to diet on as many carbs as possible while loosing weight. I have female clients loosing weight on 130-200 carbs daily to loose and even more to maintain.0 -
OP:
Shoot for a 30c/40p/30f ratio for your total calories.
Make sure that you support your exercise calories by eating at least half of them so that calorie deficit isn't too high.
Eat when you feel like it, but just making sure that you don't exceed your calorie limit.
Ensure you get enough sleep since this is when the most body fat is burned.
Stick to whole foods on 80% of your intake and reach your macros needed then use the other 20% to eat what you like as long as you don't exceed calories limit.
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 -
80% of you are VERY incorrect. I diet people for a living. I practise what i preach.
Foods DO matter. You can adopt the IIFYM mindset and implement it in MODERATION. But if you eat "whatever" you want… you will NOT hit your micro's and likely you fibre.
You could eat 1200 calories of whatever & be hungry all day. OR eat 900 calories of "clean" foods and 300 of "whatever" and feel full.
Eating 3-6 meals a day DOES improve your metabolism during waking hours. The benefit is minimal, but it's there. It's also good for active people… to ensure a constant supply of energy is spread. IE DO NOT EAT ALL YOUR CARBS at night. Post workout and the rest spread evenly (more towards your more active times) would be beneficial to your wellbeing.
in terms of your diet, I think your likely underdoing your carbs … aslong as your calories are controlled .. try to diet on as many carbs as possible while loosing weight. I have female clients loosing weight on 130-200 carbs daily to loose and even more to maintain.
80% of this is highly incorrect in generalized. In fact, did you even read the thread? Because it's already been establish the meal frequency does NOT matter.. You also have to consider while we will discuss the extremes (you can eat 1200 calories of bacon vs veggies and still get the results) but NO ONE actually eats that. So it's a rather moot point.The fact is, we all eat a variety of foods as we all know we need a variety for the well being. Third, I would love to see the science on your thoughts are carbs. I will note that I do know women eating 800 calories in carbs, but they are also eating around 1800+ calories during weight loss. Essentially, you should be aiming for 1g of protein and .35g of fats and the remainder of carbs. But overall, carbs are for energy. If what you suggest was true, then people on Keto diets or women who have PCOS (insulin resistaces) wouldn't be losing weight. So in the end, it's more about calories than macro's. Macro's are for satiety, muscle retention and to fit a personal lifestyle.0 -
speaking of generalization …. throwing out protein and fat requirements like you did appears to be what i would consider "generalized" ???
I feel like IIFYM and Calorie counters are becoming like scientology. You take research for face value … and swear by what it says in black and white.
While i understand the movement from 6 meals to the now common "whatever" meal frequency…. the bottom line is … their are benefits to higher meal frequency that science simply has not uncovered yet. We've spent MUCH time and resources on determining why smaller # of meals is just as good… and not looked further into why we believed 6 + was good in the first place.
To sum, we get new science and JUMP on it. Which is what YOUR doing.
Bodybuilders, Bikkini Models, and anyone who makes money off being in shape …. for the most part eats a higher amount of meals a day. How do i know ? I'm in the industry and i can speak and "generalize" for my peers.
For simple bro science for you, it makes more sense to spread daily protein over multiple meals and keep a constant stream of amino's. I've done IF many times, and i can personally say i make more strides towards anabolism when eating multiple meals.
Why is this important you ask? Because the more muscle i acquire, the higher my energy demand is … the higher i can keep my metabolic rate…. aka dieting down ON MORE calories.
Which leads me you doubting me on carbs. If you've maximized your metabolism like in my example ^^^ then it allows you (women especially) to eat more said CHO. This is why i have female clients who can handle 150 - 250 grams of carbs per day.
Staying away from carbs and dieting on low calories is metabolically damaging when done for too long like 85% of the people on this site.
To SUM it all.
Multiple meals is OPTIMAL for body composition goals. Key word "OPTIMAL".
Dieting on as many carbs as possible is metabolically friendly. Restricting is ok if done for short periods of time, but in the long run … optimizing metabolic rate via CHO consumption will lead to better results.0 -
speaking of generalization …. throwing out protein and fat requirements like you did appears to be what i would consider "generalized" ???
I feel like IIFYM and Calorie counters are becoming like scientology. You take research for face value … and swear by what it says in black and white.
While i understand the movement from 6 meals to the now common "whatever" meal frequency…. the bottom line is … their are benefits to higher meal frequency that science simply has not uncovered yet. We've spent MUCH time and resources on determining why smaller # of meals is just as good… and not looked further into why we believed 6 + was good in the first place.
To sum, we get new science and JUMP on it. Which is what YOUR doing.
Bodybuilders, Bikkini Models, and anyone who makes money off being in shape …. for the most part eats a higher amount of meals a day. How do i know ? I'm in the industry and i can speak and "generalize" for my peers.
For simple bro science for you, it makes more sense to spread daily protein over multiple meals and keep a constant stream of amino's. I've done IF many times, and i can personally say i make more strides towards anabolism when eating multiple meals.
Why is this important you ask? Because the more muscle i acquire, the higher my energy demand is … the higher i can keep my metabolic rate…. aka dieting down ON MORE calories.
Which leads me you doubting me on carbs. If you've maximized your metabolism like in my example ^^^ then it allows you (women especially) to eat more said CHO. This is why i have female clients who can handle 150 - 250 grams of carbs per day.
Staying away from carbs and dieting on low calories is metabolically damaging when done for too long like 85% of the people on this site.
To SUM it all.
Multiple meals is OPTIMAL for body composition goals. Key word "OPTIMAL".
Dieting on as many carbs as possible is metabolically friendly. Restricting is ok if done for short periods of time, but in the long run … optimizing metabolic rate via CHO consumption will lead to better results.
In fact, I do base my recommendations on science.. I do research from multiple sources and provide recommedations based on the latest science. I do this because science evolves. If you don't evolve with it, you will be left behind. Heck, would you want your doctor to base their career on study taught when they were in school or would you want the latest information?
So yes, for my protein recommendation (link 1), I use threads like below to adapt a plan based on their goals. And yes, I understand the science can change, but so do my recommendation as I learn more. Another good example is nutrition timing. Are you supposed to consume protein before or after or both? Well, it's not that simple. There may be indications that overall consumption is more important than when (link 2). Based on your definition, that means I am a science jumper, which is fine. Knowing I am making recommendations for a specific reason gives me reassurance. If you rather use anecdotal evidence based on your gyms experience and your work in the field great. I hope it works out for you and it seems like it has.
I will note, that your approach (increase carbs) is not an ideal plan for everyone, there are those (such as my wife) who benefit more when they minimize carbs. There are actually many reasons to go low carb: PCOS with insulin resistance, lack of diet adherence (those who tend to splurge more when loading their diet in carbs), and other medical conditions. In fact, if you look at some of the groups, you will see groups with over 7000 members... many of which have been very successful long term (link 3).
I am not sure why you brought up low calories, because I never would suggest someone going on a low calorie diet unless they are morbidly obese and under supervision and not for long stretches of time. Additionally, I also understand the requirements of muscle, so I don't even understand why you brought that up either. I am pretty sure 90% of the members on this board know that muscle has a large caloric requirement, which enables you to eat more calories.
And lastly, to discuss body builders, etc... many of these members have very large calorie requirements. In many cases, they have to eat more meals to give them the opportunity to get enough calories. I had a friend training and required 5000-6000 calories a day; he had to eat 10x a day just to maintain that range. I can't imagine a person with that kind of caloric requirement eat 2 meals a day. That is why IF, especially while bulking, is not beneficial.
BTW, I follow IIFYM and I eat multiple times a day (6-8x to be exact). It's not that I don't agree with you on all your points,, its that you are making a lot of generalizations; especially starting your sentence off with "80% of the people on this thread don't know what they are talking about". At least provide some science to back those claims because when there is disputes or discussions, your word isn't worth much.
In the end, success is dependent on one major item... diet adherence.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/823505-research-on-protien-intake
http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-10-5.pdf
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-group0 -
speaking of generalization …. throwing out protein and fat requirements like you did appears to be what i would consider "generalized" ???
I feel like IIFYM and Calorie counters are becoming like scientology. You take research for face value … and swear by what it says in black and white.
While i understand the movement from 6 meals to the now common "whatever" meal frequency…. the bottom line is … their are benefits to higher meal frequency that science simply has not uncovered yet. We've spent MUCH time and resources on determining why smaller # of meals is just as good… and not looked further into why we believed 6 + was good in the first place.
To sum, we get new science and JUMP on it. Which is what YOUR doing.
Bodybuilders, Bikkini Models, and anyone who makes money off being in shape …. for the most part eats a higher amount of meals a day. How do i know ? I'm in the industry and i can speak and "generalize" for my peers.
For simple bro science for you, it makes more sense to spread daily protein over multiple meals and keep a constant stream of amino's. I've done IF many times, and i can personally say i make more strides towards anabolism when eating multiple meals.
Why is this important you ask? Because the more muscle i acquire, the higher my energy demand is … the higher i can keep my metabolic rate…. aka dieting down ON MORE calories.
Which leads me you doubting me on carbs. If you've maximized your metabolism like in my example ^^^ then it allows you (women especially) to eat more said CHO. This is why i have female clients who can handle 150 - 250 grams of carbs per day.
Staying away from carbs and dieting on low calories is metabolically damaging when done for too long like 85% of the people on this site.
To SUM it all.
Multiple meals is OPTIMAL for body composition goals. Key word "OPTIMAL".
Dieting on as many carbs as possible is metabolically friendly. Restricting is ok if done for short periods of time, but in the long run … optimizing metabolic rate via CHO consumption will lead to better results.
In fact, I do base my recommendations on science.. I do research from multiple sources and provide recommedations based on the latest science. I do this because science evolves. If you don't evolve with it, you will be left behind. Heck, would you want your doctor to base their career on study taught when they were in school or would you want the latest information?
So yes, for my protein recommendation (link 1), I use threads like below to adapt a plan based on their goals. And yes, I understand the science can change, but so do my recommendation as I learn more. Another good example is nutrition timing. Are you supposed to consume protein before or after or both? Well, it's not that simple. There may be indications that overall consumption is more important than when (link 2). Based on your definition, that means I am a science jumper, which is fine. Knowing I am making recommendations for a specific reason gives me reassurance. If you rather use anecdotal evidence based on your gyms experience and your work in the field great. I hope it works out for you and it seems like it has.
I will note, that your approach (increase carbs) is not an ideal plan for everyone, there are those (such as my wife) who benefit more when they minimize carbs. There are actually many reasons to go low carb: PCOS with insulin resistance, lack of diet adherence (those who tend to splurge more when loading their diet in carbs), and other medical conditions. In fact, if you look at some of the groups, you will see groups with over 7000 members... many of which have been very successful long term (link 3).
I am not sure why you brought up low calories, because I never would suggest someone going on a low calorie diet unless they are morbidly obese and under supervision and not for long stretches of time. Additionally, I also understand the requirements of muscle, so I don't even understand why you brought that up either. I am pretty sure 90% of the members on this board know that muscle has a large caloric requirement, which enables you to eat more calories.
And lastly, to discuss body builders, etc... many of these members have very large calorie requirements. In many cases, they have to eat more meals to give them the opportunity to get enough calories. I had a friend training and required 5000-6000 calories a day; he had to eat 10x a day just to maintain that range. I can't imagine a person with that kind of caloric requirement eat 2 meals a day. That is why IF, especially while bulking, is not beneficial.
BTW, I follow IIFYM and I eat multiple times a day (6-8x to be exact). It's not that I don't agree with you on all your points,, its that you are making a lot of generalizations; especially starting your sentence off with "80% of the people on this thread don't know what they are talking about". At least provide some science to back those claims because when there is disputes or discussions, your word isn't worth much.
In the end, success is dependent on one major item... diet adherence.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/823505-research-on-protien-intake
http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-10-5.pdf
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-group
drops the mic and walks off lol:laugh: 0 -
psulemon, well said. I too base what I know off studies and those that have good methods of testing, that are human controlled studies and not done on animals like rats.
That being said I would just like to add a few things on carbohydrates. First of all eating carbohydrates at night is NOT fattening. It can actually be beneficial to have the majority of your carbohydrates at night here's the reference:
Sofer S, et al. Greater weight loss and hormonal changes after 6 months diet with carbohydrates eaten mostly at dinner. Obesity, 2011 Apr 7.
Also carbohydrates in the form of starches which are mainly polysaccharide which I am sure as a nutrionist you would know means to have many chains of sugar, which means that it is great for gaining weight but should naturally be limited when trying to lose it. Not completely but it would be adviseable. Carbohydrates are definitely something to have in the diet so don't take me wrong I'm not saying go on a zero carbohydrate diet long term.
Here's my final opinion. Don't go to extremes unless you have extreme life (like needing to eat many meals because you are an elite athlete and just eating 3 meals isn't going to cut it because your stomach can't fit in all the calories you burn), eat a good solid 3 meals that has everything you need, your fruits vegetables and proteins, have a variety and you'll be set. Simple. Most of all don't stress. Stress is a big thing to deal with in terms of body composition and diet.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