eating schedule - meals per day
elv1ra
Posts: 146 Member
why does everyone talk about eating X amount of small meals per day? I have a 1200/day calorie allowance. I dont see how 4 or 5 or 6 "meals" a day is even possible. does it really count as a meal vs a snack if youre trying to keep it under 300 calories? does it matter how many times a day you eat? I feel like i only eat 1 "meal" a day and snack throughout the rest of the day on fruit, lean meat i keep in the fridge, small amounts of chips and salsa, popcorn etc and i feel ok with this. how do you break up your calories throughout the day?
0
Replies
-
you wind up having a lot more small snacks- and maybe one fuller meal.
I did that a lot when I worked in construction- it was convenient and useful.
Now that I'm in an office job- I don't start eating till noon or later- I can deal really well with being hungry in the morning- but once I get home- I can't deal with being hungry- so instead of trying to fight it- I just balance my food toward the end of the day- I often eat 500+1000 calories after 5 PM, sometimes my biggest meal is at 10 or 11 at night. Easy peasy.
just do what works for you in terms of timing.
Also- why do you only have 1200 calories? are you exceptionally short?0 -
Meal timing or frequency doesn't matter. Eat whenever or however often you want.0
-
I was doing 1200 from Feb.-this week and upped to 1300. It's not hard. I'll have breakfast, a snack before lunch, a small lunch, and dinner, then maybe dessert. I like doing smaller meals because it keeps me full so I'm not starving and over eat at "main meals." Feel free to add me if you'd like, I have an open diary. I was a little all over the board last week but usually pretty good. It can be done.0
-
It really doesn't matter when you eat. Eat when it works best for you.
That said, I am quite sure you are eating too little.
MFP is quite notorious for setting calorie goals FAR too low, regardless of height and weight. For example, it told me to eat 1200, and my BMR (the bare amount of calories I need to LIVE) is 1280. And I am extremely tiny, only 5 feet. So unless you are smaller than me, or bedridden, it is almost a CERTAINTY that you are eating too little. (This can result in lean muscle loss, chronic fatigue, metabolism damage, and bingeing due to over-restriction.)
Go to
http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/
and enter your height/weight/activity level.
Subtract 10-20% from the number it calculates for you, and that is the number of calories you should be eating a day in order to lose weight. With this method you do not eat back your exercise calories, as they are already figured into your daily goal.0 -
Also- why do you only have 1200 calories? are you exceptionally short?
thats what MFP gave me to lose 2lbs per week. im not short, im 5'9 and 190lbs0 -
thats what MFP gave me to lose 2lbs per week. im not short, im 5'9 and 190lbs
1200 is way too little. At 5'9 190, you could still be losing weight eating near 2000 calories a day.0 -
I usually eat something very small on the way to work, sometimes not. Then I eat a small lunch and maybe a snack at work. Then I eat right when I get home a smallish meal or protein shake before I workout. Then I eat whatever calories are left after I workout.
But I've also gone for long periods of time with only eating one meal a day but for the same calories. Results were the same either way. It's just whatever happens to fit my schedule best at the time. But the frequency of meals doesn't really matter much.0 -
I eat however many times I want but I'm generally satisfied with 3-4 meals a day. I also have a 2300 calorie goal though. In weight loss I went from 170 lbs to 115 lbs eating 1650 net, so most days I'd eat close to 1900. I'm 5'3.5". I definitely think you should eat more. Slow and steady is better than quick weight loss.0
-
Also- why do you only have 1200 calories? are you exceptionally short?
thats what MFP gave me to lose 2lbs per week. im not short, im 5'9 and 190lbs
If you're down to your last 19, do you think it is wise to continue at the 2lb/wk guideline? I'd think 1lb would be more reasonable.0 -
Yeah basically these days I just eat whenever until I hit my calorie goal. Agree on the slow and steady thing too. It took me from late January until mid-July to lose 25 lbs. But I kept most of my muscle and strength too by going slowly.I eat however many times I want but I'm generally satisfied with 3-4 meals a day. I also have a 2300 calorie goal though. Slow and steady is better than quick weight loss.0 -
Also- why do you only have 1200 calories? are you exceptionally short?
thats what MFP gave me to lose 2lbs per week. im not short, im 5'9 and 190lbs
If you're down to your last 19, do you think it is wise to continue at the 2lb/wk guideline? I'd think 1lb would be more reasonable.
this is going to sound stupid, but im not in my last 19. it makes me feel good to see the ticker moving along. once i hit 170 ill be considered a healthy bmi(for the first time ever!), but ill reset my goal after that. i still want to lose about another 40. i dont like to go slowly, it kills my motivation. to keep my head in it i need to keep seeing good results to encourage me to keep going. I still have a huge amount of belly fat staring back at me in the mirror. its taken me over 2 years to lose this first 80. I havent been dieting the whole time. for 14 months of it i was in a relationship and was eating like a pig because my boyfriend ALWAYS had obscene amounts of unhealthy food around 24/7.0 -
im glad to hear that eating schedule doesnt seem to matter
0 -
Also- why do you only have 1200 calories? are you exceptionally short?
thats what MFP gave me to lose 2lbs per week. im not short, im 5'9 and 190lbs
If you're down to your last 19, do you think it is wise to continue at the 2lb/wk guideline? I'd think 1lb would be more reasonable.
this is going to sound stupid, but im not in my last 19. it makes me feel good to see the ticker moving along. once i hit 170 ill be considered a healthy bmi(for the first time ever!), but ill reset my goal after that. i still want to lose about another 40. i dont like to go slowly, it kills my motivation. to keep my head in it i need to keep seeing good results to encourage me to keep going. I still have a huge amount of belly fat staring back at me in the mirror. its taken me over 2 years to lose this first 80. I havent been dieting the whole time. for 14 months of it i was in a relationship and was eating like a pig because my boyfriend ALWAYS had obscene amounts of unhealthy food around 24/7.
If you go quickly, you may not like the end result.
Going to quickly gives you higher odds of jeopardizing muscle along with fat. Retaining muscle is important. It helps you look leaner at goal. You may even find you don't have as much weight to lose as you thought.
If you aren't, I highly suggest picking up into a weightlifting or resistance training routine to help retain lean body mass and reduce fat.
I'm assuming your goal is fat loss, not necessarily weight loss. As, no one knows what you weigh unless you tell them.
For example, in high school I was 125 lbs and a size 5. I'm 121 lbs now and a size 2. Keeping and having muscle makes a huge difference.
As far as your stomach, your fat loss is determined by genetics. It took losing my last 10-15 lbs before I saw a good amount of change in my stomach. It's commonly the last place to lose.
There are no "unhealthy" foods. Just unhealthy eating habits. How you fit food into your life is what determines whether or not it's healthy or not. So you can't really blame that. I understand that, to an extent, some people suffer from control issues over certain foods, I am certainly guilty of eating one too many chips if they're in front of me but part of this is to learn sustainability. When you start labeling food, you give that food control over you. " I can't eat this or that's bad."isn't a good mindset to have.
Pick foods that help you feel satiated and maybe fit some fun stuff in there along the way. That way, when you're at your goal and need to switch to maintenance, you aren't relapsing on bad habits because you've learned how to moderate those foods that gave you issues in the past0 -
Also- why do you only have 1200 calories? are you exceptionally short?
thats what MFP gave me to lose 2lbs per week. im not short, im 5'9 and 190lbs
If you're down to your last 19, do you think it is wise to continue at the 2lb/wk guideline? I'd think 1lb would be more reasonable.
this is going to sound stupid, but im not in my last 19. it makes me feel good to see the ticker moving along. once i hit 170 ill be considered a healthy bmi(for the first time ever!), but ill reset my goal after that. i still want to lose about another 40. i dont like to go slowly, it kills my motivation. to keep my head in it i need to keep seeing good results to encourage me to keep going. I still have a huge amount of belly fat staring back at me in the mirror. its taken me over 2 years to lose this first 80. I havent been dieting the whole time. for 14 months of it i was in a relationship and was eating like a pig because my boyfriend ALWAYS had obscene amounts of unhealthy food around 24/7.
no doesn't sound stupid.
I'm 5'8" and my ultimate goal is to get aroudn 145- 150 for maintenance. I don't mess with my ticker at all- and I rarely use the "goal settings" feature- I use the site to track my food and workouts.
And yeah 1200 is survivable- but you could be losing on 1900- that's a lot of extra food up from 1200.
So at 170- can maintain myself with 3 solid lifting workouts- and about 10 hours of dance- eating 2000 plus or minutes 200 some calories. My goal was 1600- and I was eating back 400 or so regularly of workout calories- and I stayed fairly consistent in weight all through June.
I just dropped to 1500 again + I eat back 75% of my workout calories. so on average- I'm still hitting 17-1800.
no reason to fight for 1200 when you can still lose and eat more. trust- I've done it both ways- it sucks eating less LOL because food iz delicious.
side note:
Are you lifting at all? That could help shift your body composition and give you some success motivation
0 -
Hi, thanks for the add.
I eat about 1200 calories a day, too. Usually less as I am not hungry enough to eat more than I do. My food is nutrient dense and I'd rather eat 1200 calories of nutrient-dense food than add another 300 calories of whatever just to get to 1500.
To answer your question, the idea of grazing is that you keep your sugar levels rather stable throughout the day. Some folks have sugar spikes and drops and it affects how they feel.
If this isn't you, no need to worry. It isn't me, but if I need a snack, I eat a peach or an apple.0 -
Also- why do you only have 1200 calories? are you exceptionally short?
I totaly agree with this. I just do not understand why people go with such low numbers.....0 -
Hi, thanks for the add.
I eat about 1200 calories a day, too. Usually less as I am not hungry enough to eat more than I do. My food is nutrient dense and I'd rather eat 1200 calories of nutrient-dense food than add another 300 calories of whatever just to get to 1500.
To answer your question, the idea of grazing is that you keep your sugar levels rather stable throughout the day. Some folks have sugar spikes and drops and it affects how they feel.
If this isn't you, no need to worry. It isn't me, but if I need a snack, I eat a peach or an apple.
Your body is like a machine it needs X amount of calories for it to function properly. Eating less than your body needs to function right isn't the correct course of action, just because you've got some skewed view of food sources. Your body doesn't care where it's getting it's nutrients from, only that it's getting it and a proper amount to function.0 -
Eating schedule doesn't necessarily matter in terms of weight loss, but it does in terms of fueling grueling workouts. I'm pretty active and eat an average of 2000 calories a day. The bulk of my calories are mid day to fuel my evening workouts. Part of it is just experimenting and figuring out what works for you - based on your goals.0
-
Also- why do you only have 1200 calories? are you exceptionally short?
thats what MFP gave me to lose 2lbs per week. im not short, im 5'9 and 190lbs
Your problems:
1.) You're not eating enough
2.) You're using MFP's recommended calorie limit
3.) You think losing 2 lb/week is reasonable
Also, it doesn't matter how many times per day you eat, nor does it matter what time of day you eat. Calories in vs. calories out.0 -
I think its been proven over and over again with research and plenty of anecdotal evidence that it doesn't make much difference if you are eating 5 meals or 2.
However people do have problems in-between meals and often can do better by grazing on small meals (snacks as you called them) to tie them over so they do not over-eat when their real meal comes up.
Fifteen years ago, groundbreaking research indicated that people that ate 6 meals a day, had better metabolism and held steady blood sugar levels etc....not so sure about that now. It just works for me so I tend to eat 3 meals with one or two snacks thrown in.
Honestly...find what works for you.
However you meet your caloric goals is the important thing, the individual numbers that added up to that total and their frequency isn't as big of a deal.0 -
I just did this and this site says I should be getting 400-500 more calories a day than MFP says. Maybe that's why I haven't been loosing for a while?It really doesn't matter when you eat. Eat when it works best for you.
That said, I am quite sure you are eating too little.
MFP is quite notorious for setting calorie goals FAR too low, regardless of height and weight. For example, it told me to eat 1200, and my BMR (the bare amount of calories I need to LIVE) is 1280. And I am extremely tiny, only 5 feet. So unless you are smaller than me, or bedridden, it is almost a CERTAINTY that you are eating too little. (This can result in lean muscle loss, chronic fatigue, metabolism damage, and bingeing due to over-restriction.)
Go to
http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/
and enter your height/weight/activity level.
Subtract 10-20% from the number it calculates for you, and that is the number of calories you should be eating a day in order to lose weight. With this method you do not eat back your exercise calories, as they are already figured into your daily goal.0 -
For me, it kinda goes like this....if I restrict too much I want it to be over as soon as possible and create unrealistic goals
if I have a modest deficit, I'm in less of a hurry because it's not as painful0 -
Hi, thanks for the add.
I eat about 1200 calories a day, too. Usually less as I am not hungry enough to eat more than I do. My food is nutrient dense and I'd rather eat 1200 calories of nutrient-dense food than add another 300 calories of whatever just to get to 1500.
To answer your question, the idea of grazing is that you keep your sugar levels rather stable throughout the day. Some folks have sugar spikes and drops and it affects how they feel.
If this isn't you, no need to worry. It isn't me, but if I need a snack, I eat a peach or an apple.
Your body is like a machine it needs X amount of calories for it to function properly. Eating less than your body needs to function right isn't the correct course of action, just because you've got some skewed view of food sources. Your body doesn't care where it's getting it's nutrients from, only that it's getting it and a proper amount to function.
I rely on the Harris-Benedict studies. At 54 years of age, female, 5'6", lightly active, the right amount of calories I need to consume to lose 1 to 1.5 pounds per week is approximately 1228.
As we age, our metabolisms slow down.
It's science.0 -
Hi, thanks for the add.
I eat about 1200 calories a day, too. Usually less as I am not hungry enough to eat more than I do. My food is nutrient dense and I'd rather eat 1200 calories of nutrient-dense food than add another 300 calories of whatever just to get to 1500.
To answer your question, the idea of grazing is that you keep your sugar levels rather stable throughout the day. Some folks have sugar spikes and drops and it affects how they feel.
If this isn't you, no need to worry. It isn't me, but if I need a snack, I eat a peach or an apple.
Your body is like a machine it needs X amount of calories for it to function properly. Eating less than your body needs to function right isn't the correct course of action, just because you've got some skewed view of food sources. Your body doesn't care where it's getting it's nutrients from, only that it's getting it and a proper amount to function.
I rely on the Harris-Benedict studies. At 54 years of age, female, 5'6", lightly active, the right amount of calories I need to consume to lose 1 to 1.5 pounds per week is approximately 1228.
As we age, our metabolisms slow down.
It's science.
Lol...the Harris benedict calculator gave me 1700 for my activity level and stats to maintain my 5'3.5" 120 lb body at my activity level. I LOSE weight at that, even calculated for my age. I understand metabolism slows down with age but not as significantly as you'd think. I think from 26 to 60 I lose 200 calories. I maintain my weight at 2150ish.
Nothing is exact science when it comes to simple calculators. I can agree that everyone is different but I would also challenge that you need that little to lose
ETA:
0 -
why does everyone talk about eating X amount of small meals per day? I have a 1200/day calorie allowance. I dont see how 4 or 5 or 6 "meals" a day is even possible. does it really count as a meal vs a snack if youre trying to keep it under 300 calories? does it matter how many times a day you eat? I feel like i only eat 1 "meal" a day and snack throughout the rest of the day on fruit, lean meat i keep in the fridge, small amounts of chips and salsa, popcorn etc and i feel ok with this. how do you break up your calories throughout the day?
Not everyone does...only people who don't know any better. It was discovered that eating several small meals a day may increase you metabolism...like by just a tiny, teensy...weensy...itsy, bitsy little bit...maybe perhaps. And that got blown up into, "eat 6 times per day and your body turns into a raging calorie burning furnace magically."0 -
Hi, thanks for the add.
I eat about 1200 calories a day, too. Usually less as I am not hungry enough to eat more than I do. My food is nutrient dense and I'd rather eat 1200 calories of nutrient-dense food than add another 300 calories of whatever just to get to 1500.
To answer your question, the idea of grazing is that you keep your sugar levels rather stable throughout the day. Some folks have sugar spikes and drops and it affects how they feel.
If this isn't you, no need to worry. It isn't me, but if I need a snack, I eat a peach or an apple.
Your body is like a machine it needs X amount of calories for it to function properly. Eating less than your body needs to function right isn't the correct course of action, just because you've got some skewed view of food sources. Your body doesn't care where it's getting it's nutrients from, only that it's getting it and a proper amount to function.
I rely on the Harris-Benedict studies. At 54 years of age, female, 5'6", lightly active, the right amount of calories I need to consume to lose 1 to 1.5 pounds per week is approximately 1228.
As we age, our metabolisms slow down.
It's science.
Lol...the Harris benedict calculator gave me 1700 for my activity level and stats to maintain my 5'3.5" 120 lb body at my activity level. I LOSE weight at that, even calculated for my age. I understand metabolism slows down with age but not as significantly as you'd think. I think from 26 to 60 I lose 200 calories. I maintain my weight at 2150ish.
Nothing is exact science when it comes to simple calculators. I can agree that everyone is different but I would also challenge that you need that little to lose
ETA:
[/quote
I'm glad you find it amusing.
Do you have multiple sclerosis?
Do you know how MS affects metabolism?
This is why I refrain from judging anyone's choices on public forums.
No one knows the whole story.
I'll keep trusting the science.
It's kept me alive, running marathons, lifting weights, and feeling good.
All at 1200 calories a day.
*wink*0 -
Hi, thanks for the add.
I eat about 1200 calories a day, too. Usually less as I am not hungry enough to eat more than I do. My food is nutrient dense and I'd rather eat 1200 calories of nutrient-dense food than add another 300 calories of whatever just to get to 1500.
To answer your question, the idea of grazing is that you keep your sugar levels rather stable throughout the day. Some folks have sugar spikes and drops and it affects how they feel.
If this isn't you, no need to worry. It isn't me, but if I need a snack, I eat a peach or an apple.
Your body is like a machine it needs X amount of calories for it to function properly. Eating less than your body needs to function right isn't the correct course of action, just because you've got some skewed view of food sources. Your body doesn't care where it's getting it's nutrients from, only that it's getting it and a proper amount to function.
I rely on the Harris-Benedict studies. At 54 years of age, female, 5'6", lightly active, the right amount of calories I need to consume to lose 1 to 1.5 pounds per week is approximately 1228.
As we age, our metabolisms slow down.
It's science.
Lol...the Harris benedict calculator gave me 1700 for my activity level and stats to maintain my 5'3.5" 120 lb body at my activity level. I LOSE weight at that, even calculated for my age. I understand metabolism slows down with age but not as significantly as you'd think. I think from 26 to 60 I lose 200 calories. I maintain my weight at 2150ish.
Nothing is exact science when it comes to simple calculators. I can agree that everyone is different but I would also challenge that you need that little to lose
ETA:
[/quote
I'm glad you find it amusing.
Do you have multiple sclerosis?
Do you know how MS affects metabolism?
This is why I refrain from judging anyone's choices on public forums.
No one knows the whole story.
I'll keep trusting the science.
It's kept me alive, running marathons, lifting weights, and feeling good.
All at 1200 calories a day.
*wink*
Medical conditions are a completely different topic ENTIRELY. And if, in the event, OP had stated she had medical issues which made it to where she needed to eat at a lower calorie amount, I don't think anyone would criticize.
I'm sorry you neglected to say that and just insist that it's because of your age to try and flame mw.
No. Medical conditions shouldn't be joked about but they were never mentioned and you should not use your caloric intake as a safe amount for everyone just because you need to0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions