3 meals vs 6 meals a day, what's your experience/opinion?
Replies
-
A couple of things. Meal timing does not matter. You will find sources that say it does, but I can guarantee those sources are trying to make money off you believing that. Or they heard it from someone trying to make money. I sometimes eat a single meal with all my daily calories. Sometimes I eat about 12 mini-meals because I spend the whole day grazing. I eat what I want when I want (just not necessarily AS MUCH as I want
).
Carb timing does not matter, unless you have a medical condition. I have type 1 diabetes, and it only moderately matters for me, but not for the reasons your PT claimed. Your body can use the energy from carbs even if you eat them right before you go to sleep. That is just a fact. I eat in bed watching Netflix almost every night, and all my snacks are high-carb. It has not affected my weight loss or my health in any way whatsoever.
Your PT is not a registered dietician who was trained on nutrition, so you should ignore the advice she's giving you, since it is incorrect. Either see a registered dietician, or stick around MFP to read what some of the regulars with higher post counts are saying.
And finally, I would agree with previous posters that 1300 calories is too low for someone of your size. HOWEVER. That assumes you are correctly weighing your food with a digital scale and logging everything. If you aren't, then you are probably eating more than 1300 calories already and increasing what you eat could be counterproductive to your goals. If you are weighing your foods and logging correctly, then yes, 1300 is too low. However, you should know if it's too low by how fast you're losing. Your body doesn't care if you're logging correctly or not, it will lose the weight based on the calories going in vs the calories you burn. If you are losing the weight rapidly, add calories and slow down. If the weight is coming off at a slow/steady pace, then you are most likely already eating more than 1300. In that case, you would want to tighten up your logging when you get closer to goal, but it may not matter so much right now.
There's a lot of misinformation out there about dieting, and it can be frustrating when you start to realize how much "common knowledge" about nutrition/dieting is simply false. Like I said, stick around and you can learn a lot on these forums.
Incorrect based on all scientific evidence and studies found to date. Like mentioned, it does not matter much; especially for OP's current situation.
It does matter, just very little. Eric Helms in his nutritional series points out it's importance which might account for only about 10%, but 10% is not 0 as you infer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6wkDDnSKV0
If you can refute Eric with the studies he has linked, please enlighten us further.
lol right. All scientific evidence found to date, yet there's nothing definitive about what you've stated either. I didn't say "0%"; I said it doesn't matter. Because it doesn't. Which is not a far cry from, "it does not matter much; especially for OP's current situation." But go ahead and argue a point that you've stated yourself doesn't matter in relation to this thread. *ETA - Especially since my post was not about providing OP with specific scientific facts so that she could debate her PT. I was providing a starting point and encouraged her to do her own research either here or elsewhere. I don't really understand the need to take my post, which said a variation of what almost every other poster said, and say that it's wrong because you inferred "0%" from my "it doesn't matter".
Someone else has already provided some links for you to check out. And I don't need any specific references to point out that if meal timing accounted for 10% variance, then we would know it. 10% variance can be a lot when you're talking about statistical significance.
"But go ahead and argue a point that you've stated yourself doesn't matter in relation to this thread."
The whole point of the OP's thread was asking about meal frequency and timing. My reply back to you was only to suggest that when you tell someone that "it does not matter", they come away from that statement inferring that it has 0 influence. My follow up to that was to suggest that there is greater than 0 influence (some have represented this unfluence by as much as 10% in the scope of things...is it more or is it less, I cannot say...but can you honestly say that it is 0?...again what you infer.)
So if you are telling someone that it does not matter, does this mean that it matters a little bit now these days? Guess we went to different schools. And as pointed out by you, my statement was that "it did not matter much"
Never did I say it did not matter at all.
If it were a fact that meal timing accounted for even 1% of the variance of weight loss effectiveness (which it is not), my answer to OP would still be, "it doesn't matter." I'm not sure why you feel the need to argue that I should have included "much" at the end of a sentence that expresses the same sentiment as everyone else here. I was not writing a conclusion for a peer-reviewed research study. I gave my opinion and suggested OP do her own research. Because even if meal timing were consistently shown to have that much of an effect on weight loss (hint: it hasn't), 1% would not be enough for me to conclude that meal timing matters enough to worry about it.
I'm guessing you don't actually want a response about the type of schooling I received, and that your remark was only intended to mock my intelligence because I worded something incorrectly in your opinion?
You can have all of the schooling in the world, but if your statement is taken one way due to stating it as an absolute (and the statement you made inferred that the outcome would be absolute 0) and there is not an absolute, then it is wrong by definition.
And we both agree in the context of the OP that it is not enough to worry about as I previously stated.
So you're derailing a thread to criticize my lack of a qualifier? Okay.
OP, since I don't think that any miniscule possible variance that meal timing may possibly ever be shown to account for (since there is no definitive research as of yet) in weight loss effectiveness would be enough to warrant changing your lifestyle, please let me re-phrase state my original thought: "It doesn't matter." I hope I was specific enough for you there, because I would hate for that to come across as an absolute in casual conversation.
ETA - You updated your post as I was responding. I never stated that no difference exists. I just don't understand your need to derail over the lack of a word in a post that was never aimed towards you.0 -
A couple of things. Meal timing does not matter. You will find sources that say it does, but I can guarantee those sources are trying to make money off you believing that. Or they heard it from someone trying to make money. I sometimes eat a single meal with all my daily calories. Sometimes I eat about 12 mini-meals because I spend the whole day grazing. I eat what I want when I want (just not necessarily AS MUCH as I want ).
Carb timing does not matter, unless you have a medical condition. I have type 1 diabetes, and it only moderately matters for me, but not for the reasons your PT claimed. Your body can use the energy from carbs even if you eat them right before you go to sleep. That is just a fact. I eat in bed watching Netflix almost every night, and all my snacks are high-carb. It has not affected my weight loss or my health in any way whatsoever.
Your PT is not a registered dietician who was trained on nutrition, so you should ignore the advice she's giving you, since it is incorrect. Either see a registered dietician, or stick around MFP to read what some of the regulars with higher post counts are saying.
And finally, I would agree with previous posters that 1300 calories is too low for someone of your size. HOWEVER. That assumes you are correctly weighing your food with a digital scale and logging everything. If you aren't, then you are probably eating more than 1300 calories already and increasing what you eat could be counterproductive to your goals. If you are weighing your foods and logging correctly, then yes, 1300 is too low. However, you should know if it's too low by how fast you're losing. Your body doesn't care if you're logging correctly or not, it will lose the weight based on the calories going in vs the calories you burn. If you are losing the weight rapidly, add calories and slow down. If the weight is coming off at a slow/steady pace, then you are most likely already eating more than 1300. In that case, you would want to tighten up your logging when you get closer to goal, but it may not matter so much right now.
There's a lot of misinformation out there about dieting, and it can be frustrating when you start to realize how much "common knowledge" about nutrition/dieting is simply false. Like I said, stick around and you can learn a lot on these forums.
Incorrect based on all scientific evidence and studies found to date. Like mentioned, it does not matter much; especially for OP's current situation.
It does matter, just very little. Eric Helms in his nutritional series points out it's importance which might account for only about 10%, but 10% is not 0 as you infer.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6wkDDnSKV0
If you can refute Eric with the studies he has linked, please enlighten us further.
lol right. All scientific evidence found to date, yet there's nothing definitive about what you've stated either. I didn't say "0%"; I said it doesn't matter. Because it doesn't. Which is not a far cry from, "it does not matter much; especially for OP's current situation." But go ahead and argue a point that you've stated yourself doesn't matter in relation to this thread. *ETA - Especially since my post was not about providing OP with specific scientific facts so that she could debate her PT. I was providing a starting point and encouraged her to do her own research either here or elsewhere. I don't really understand the need to take my post, which said a variation of what almost every other poster said, and say that it's wrong because you inferred "0%" from my "it doesn't matter".
Someone else has already provided some links for you to check out. And I don't need any specific references to point out that if meal timing accounted for 10% variance, then we would know it. 10% variance can be a lot when you're talking about statistical significance.
"But go ahead and argue a point that you've stated yourself doesn't matter in relation to this thread."
The whole point of the OP's thread was asking about meal frequency and timing. My reply back to you was only to suggest that when you tell someone that "it does not matter", they come away from that statement inferring that it has 0 influence. My follow up to that was to suggest that there is greater than 0 influence (some have represented this unfluence by as much as 10% in the scope of things...is it more or is it less, I cannot say...but can you honestly say that it is 0?...again what you infer.)
So if you are telling someone that it does not matter, does this mean that it matters a little bit now these days? Guess we went to different schools. And as pointed out by you, my statement was that "it did not matter much"
Never did I say it did not matter at all.
If it were a fact that meal timing accounted for even 1% of the variance of weight loss effectiveness (which it is not), my answer to OP would still be, "it doesn't matter." I'm not sure why you feel the need to argue that I should have included "much" at the end of a sentence that expresses the same sentiment as everyone else here. I was not writing a conclusion for a peer-reviewed research study. I gave my opinion and suggested OP do her own research. Because even if meal timing were consistently shown to have that much of an effect on weight loss (hint: it hasn't), 1% would not be enough for me to conclude that meal timing matters enough to worry about it.
I'm guessing you don't actually want a response about the type of schooling I received, and that your remark was only intended to mock my intelligence because I worded something incorrectly in your opinion?
You can have all of the schooling in the world, but if your statement is taken one way due to stating it as an absolute (and the statement you made inferred that the outcome would be absolute 0) and there is not an absolute, then it is wrong by definition.
And we both agree in the context of the OP that it is not enough to worry about as I previously stated.
So you're derailing a thread to criticize my lack of a qualifier? Okay.
OP, since I don't think that any miniscule possible variance that meal timing may possibly ever be shown to account for (since there is no definitive research as of yet) in weight loss effectiveness would be enough to warrant changing your lifestyle, please let me re-phrase state my original thought: "It doesn't matter." I hope I was specific enough for you there, because I would hate for that to come across as an absolute in casual conversation.
ETA - You updated your post as I was responding. I never stated that no difference exists. I just don't understand your need to derail over the lack of a word in a post that was never aimed towards you.
I don't see it as derailing...I see it as healthy conversation that offers varied opinions and facts of what we know to date. I tend to be a little more clinical in my opinions, so I apologize if that does not translate well across posts.0 -
I do better with a proper breakfast and dinner, with snacks in between XD0
-
I find enjoyment in eating a larger dinner and the feelings of actually being full once a day. It doesn't seem like I am "dieting" that way. It's probably not the most healthful way of looking at things. I also save 180 calories for dessert which is always 1c of 1% milk and a packaged 70 calorie cookie I like.0
-
I eat 3 meals usually and a snack if I'm extra hungry that day.0
-
I do better with frequent meals. My energy/mood is more stable, which is particularly important when it's time to hit the gym.0
-
5 300-calorie meals 5 times a day is my preference because that's what makes me feel the best. I have the circumstances to allow that most of the time. For those times when I'm in an all-day meeting or conference, it's really hard because I either have to stuff myself for breakfast or I'm starving for lunch. If I know I'm going out to eat for dinner I'll work it out so I combine two of those into one (but then I feel too full).0
-
Found this topic searching for input and I think after reading every post my takeaway is, do what you prefer. The trainer I hired provided me with a meal plan of 5 meals and an after workout meal. For my schedule this is tough, also, the mid-morning meal is something that I would eat for lunch or dinner so I basically have to force it down.
She did say if I preferred I could combine the meals, so for breakfast I'll eat a breakfast meal and then the meal that I would normally eat for lunch or dinner?
Prior to getting the meal plan I was using MFP, logging my meals (using digital scale) eating three meals a day with two snacks like carrots, a juice, 1/2 protein bar etc. and I lost 21 lbs in 5 weeks. Was hoping this meal plan would kick it up a bit but its only created angst so I think it's back to after reading this thread I think it's back to three meals for me. Thanks to all for the info.0 -
fannyfrost wrote: »I didn't read all the comments, but here is my 2 cents on when you eat. Do what works for you! I find grazing to be better for me overall. If I don't have snacks I overeat.
I think we all are different. I have actually gotten to the point where I prefer to be a bit hungry. I also get kind of ill if I eat more than 500-600 calories in a meal most of the times. Right now I am eating 2500 calories a day so I do 4-6 meals a day and snacks, but I know other people like eating a lot more at once.0 -
A couple of things. Meal timing does not matter. You will find sources that say it does, but I can guarantee those sources are trying to make money off you believing that. Or they heard it from someone trying to make money. I sometimes eat a single meal with all my daily calories. Sometimes I eat about 12 mini-meals because I spend the whole day grazing. I eat what I want when I want (just not necessarily AS MUCH as I want ).
Carb timing does not matter, unless you have a medical condition. I have type 1 diabetes, and it only moderately matters for me, but not for the reasons your PT claimed. Your body can use the energy from carbs even if you eat them right before you go to sleep. That is just a fact. I eat in bed watching Netflix almost every night, and all my snacks are high-carb. It has not affected my weight loss or my health in any way whatsoever.
Your PT is not a registered dietician who was trained on nutrition, so you should ignore the advice she's giving you, since it is incorrect. Either see a registered dietician, or stick around MFP to read what some of the regulars with higher post counts are saying.
And finally, I would agree with previous posters that 1300 calories is too low for someone of your size. HOWEVER. That assumes you are correctly weighing your food with a digital scale and logging everything. If you aren't, then you are probably eating more than 1300 calories already and increasing what you eat could be counterproductive to your goals. If you are weighing your foods and logging correctly, then yes, 1300 is too low. However, you should know if it's too low by how fast you're losing. Your body doesn't care if you're logging correctly or not, it will lose the weight based on the calories going in vs the calories you burn. If you are losing the weight rapidly, add calories and slow down. If the weight is coming off at a slow/steady pace, then you are most likely already eating more than 1300. In that case, you would want to tighten up your logging when you get closer to goal, but it may not matter so much right now.
There's a lot of misinformation out there about dieting, and it can be frustrating when you start to realize how much "common knowledge" about nutrition/dieting is simply false. Like I said, stick around and you can learn a lot on these forums.
Incorrect based on all scientific evidence and studies found to date. Like mentioned, it does not matter much; especially for OP's current situation.
It does matter, just very little. Eric Helms in his nutritional series points out it's importance which might account for only about 10%, but 10% is not 0 as you infer.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6wkDDnSKV0
If you can refute Eric with the studies he has linked, please enlighten us further.
lol right. All scientific evidence found to date, yet there's nothing definitive about what you've stated either. I didn't say "0%"; I said it doesn't matter. Because it doesn't. Which is not a far cry from, "it does not matter much; especially for OP's current situation." But go ahead and argue a point that you've stated yourself doesn't matter in relation to this thread. *ETA - Especially since my post was not about providing OP with specific scientific facts so that she could debate her PT. I was providing a starting point and encouraged her to do her own research either here or elsewhere. I don't really understand the need to take my post, which said a variation of what almost every other poster said, and say that it's wrong because you inferred "0%" from my "it doesn't matter".
Someone else has already provided some links for you to check out. And I don't need any specific references to point out that if meal timing accounted for 10% variance, then we would know it. 10% variance can be a lot when you're talking about statistical significance.
"But go ahead and argue a point that you've stated yourself doesn't matter in relation to this thread."
The whole point of the OP's thread was asking about meal frequency and timing. My reply back to you was only to suggest that when you tell someone that "it does not matter", they come away from that statement inferring that it has 0 influence. My follow up to that was to suggest that there is greater than 0 influence (some have represented this unfluence by as much as 10% in the scope of things...is it more or is it less, I cannot say...but can you honestly say that it is 0?...again what you infer.)
So if you are telling someone that it does not matter, does this mean that it matters a little bit now these days? Guess we went to different schools. And as pointed out by you, my statement was that "it did not matter much"
Never did I say it did not matter at all.
If it were a fact that meal timing accounted for even 1% of the variance of weight loss effectiveness (which it is not), my answer to OP would still be, "it doesn't matter." I'm not sure why you feel the need to argue that I should have included "much" at the end of a sentence that expresses the same sentiment as everyone else here. I was not writing a conclusion for a peer-reviewed research study. I gave my opinion and suggested OP do her own research. Because even if meal timing were consistently shown to have that much of an effect on weight loss (hint: it hasn't), 1% would not be enough for me to conclude that meal timing matters enough to worry about it.
I'm guessing you don't actually want a response about the type of schooling I received, and that your remark was only intended to mock my intelligence because I worded something incorrectly in your opinion?
You can have all of the schooling in the world, but if your statement is taken one way due to stating it as an absolute (and the statement you made inferred that the outcome would be absolute 0) and there is not an absolute, then it is wrong by definition.
And we both agree in the context of the OP that it is not enough to worry about as I previously stated.
So you're derailing a thread to criticize my lack of a qualifier? Okay.
OP, since I don't think that any miniscule possible variance that meal timing may possibly ever be shown to account for (since there is no definitive research as of yet) in weight loss effectiveness would be enough to warrant changing your lifestyle, please let me re-phrase state my original thought: "It doesn't matter." I hope I was specific enough for you there, because I would hate for that to come across as an absolute in casual conversation.
ETA - You updated your post as I was responding. I never stated that no difference exists. I just don't understand your need to derail over the lack of a word in a post that was never aimed towards you.
He corrected your "absolute" statement that you made. I disagree that meal timing has 0% effect as did he. So he cleared that absolute up. Nothing wrong with that. The derailing was you getting bent out of shape :imo0 -
"Gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD, is a digestive disorder that affects the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), the ring of muscle between the esophagus and stomach."0 -
eating every 4 hours should b better because it would control the blood sugar, it will keep you from over eating bc u r not that hungry. BUT at the end it is what works for you. in my case for example I can't eat before exercising bc I get sick.
Your calorie intake it is too low, I weight 200lbs and 1200 it is too low for me, minimun for me would b 1400cals/day0 -
spittingpink wrote: »seems like there are mixed opinions, I think my main issue is growing up with a big evening meal, getting out of that habit of looking forward to that big tasty meal and all the carbs giving you that full feeling and getting my other half to change too.
Regarding your big evening meal, I grew up with that too. Now I am trying to eat my larger meal at lunch or I try to eat my evening meal before 5:30.
I also find if I run out of calories on my tracker, then I just go to bed early if possible.
I also realize my full ticker does not alway work so when my stomach grumbles, I look at my food tracker to see if I am eat more. If I run out of calories, I drink a glass of water and go to bed.
I hope this is a short term approach, but for now going to bed early is working.
My daughter lost 60 lbs using the Lose-it app and it took her about a year. She is my motivator. I have 130 pounds to lose total and have only been tracking with MyFitnesdPal since 1/15/16.0 -
Found this topic searching for input and I think after reading every post my takeaway is, do what you prefer. The trainer I hired provided me with a meal plan of 5 meals and an after workout meal. For my schedule this is tough, also, the mid-morning meal is something that I would eat for lunch or dinner so I basically have to force it down.
She did say if I preferred I could combine the meals, so for breakfast I'll eat a breakfast meal and then the meal that I would normally eat for lunch or dinner?
Prior to getting the meal plan I was using MFP, logging my meals (using digital scale) eating three meals a day with two snacks like carrots, a juice, 1/2 protein bar etc. and I lost 21 lbs in 5 weeks. Was hoping this meal plan would kick it up a bit but its only created angst so I think it's back to after reading this thread I think it's back to three meals for me. Thanks to all for the info.
I would definitely NOT be forcing myself to eat if I wasn't hungry. It could have the opposite affect of weight loss..0 -
I divided my calories into 3 meals and 1 snack and have been eating that way for 4 monthes. Tryed 3 meals and my poor husband just about left , as it affected my mood really bad. I had always had a snack before bed and my system could not go wthout it.0
-
Here's the best information I've seen to date qualifying when meal/nutrient timing does or doesn't matter:
For the casual reader, note that "Extreme fat loss in advanced exercisers" in the middle category doesn't mean the average Joe/Jane doing cardio and wanting to lose fat. It's referring more toward bodybuilders who are already extremely lean (e.g., sub 10% for males, sub 15/16% for females) and trying to get even leaner - so basically contest prep mode. Such people are in a state where losing more fat becomes increasingly difficult and little things that are inconsequential to the average person may be consequential to them. A drop from 10% to 8% (for a male) is a lot tougher to attain than a drop from 25% to 23% (for a male).0 -
Your body doesn't care about what time it is. I eat 3 meals plus one snack a day. Or I nibble all day. Or I have ice cream at 2am, log it and fit it into my calories. No matter when or what I eat, I lose if I eat at a calorie deficit. I also have that delicious dinner, a protein with rice an veg. Nothing wrong with it, as long as it fits in your calories. 1300 does seem quite low, assuming you are weighing and measuring. I do make sure my meals have good amounts of protein and fat, otherwise I do get hungry quickly an overeat.0
-
After A LOT of reading I've gone back to eating three meals a day and if I get hungry a healthy snack between meals vs 5/6 meals. It's worked for me so far, down 21 lbs so I suppose proof is in the pudding.Christine_72 wrote: »Found this topic searching for input and I think after reading every post my takeaway is, do what you prefer. The trainer I hired provided me with a meal plan of 5 meals and an after workout meal. For my schedule this is tough, also, the mid-morning meal is something that I would eat for lunch or dinner so I basically have to force it down.
She did say if I preferred I could combine the meals, so for breakfast I'll eat a breakfast meal and then the meal that I would normally eat for lunch or dinner?
Prior to getting the meal plan I was using MFP, logging my meals (using digital scale) eating three meals a day with two snacks like carrots, a juice, 1/2 protein bar etc. and I lost 21 lbs in 5 weeks. Was hoping this meal plan would kick it up a bit but its only created angst so I think it's back to after reading this thread I think it's back to three meals for me. Thanks to all for the info.
I would definitely NOT be forcing myself to eat if I wasn't hungry. It could have the opposite affect of weight loss..
I'm religious about weighing and entering my meals into MFP and I watch my calories and macros very carefully to make sure I'm spot on. I also have a kidney disease that makes it very important that I watch my protein consumption.0 -
Just do what works for you.0
-
I've done both. I'm less hungry when I eat more often, but my main meals end up being smaller. Sometimes, that's just a pain for a family dinner. I like being able to have that extra 100-150 calories in my meal. Today for example I didn't bring snacks(mostly due to the need to grocery shop) and I'm hungry now and ate 2 pieces of chocolate that I normally wouldn't have if I had a snack planned. It's nice knowing that there is a planned snack coming I find that i have more self control. On the other hand, I enjoy getting to have a 500-600 calorie dinner when I skip snacks. I'm wishy washy on the subject, can you tell? Give the snacks+meals a try. You may find 4 or 5 meals is ideal. Good luck!0
-
Yes, do what works for you.Found this topic searching for input and I think after reading every post my takeaway is, do what you prefer. The trainer I hired provided me with a meal plan of 5 meals and an after workout meal. For my schedule this is tough, also, the mid-morning meal is something that I would eat for lunch or dinner so I basically have to force it down.
She did say if I preferred I could combine the meals, so for breakfast I'll eat a breakfast meal and then the meal that I would normally eat for lunch or dinner?
Prior to getting the meal plan I was using MFP, logging my meals (using digital scale) eating three meals a day with two snacks like carrots, a juice, 1/2 protein bar etc. and I lost 21 lbs in 5 weeks. Was hoping this meal plan would kick it up a bit but its only created angst so I think it's back to after reading this thread I think it's back to three meals for me. Thanks to all for the info.
Some people like to eat through out the day. Some do very well with one or two meals a day.
0 -
This is what works for me...
I generally work out in the late afternoon/evening. I'll consume about 40% of my calories pre-workout when I'm in my office or out and about during the day. I'll eat several (4-6) small meals/snacks ranging from 150-300 calories.
I consume the remaining calories post-workout when I get home in the evening. Usually it's 250 calories immediately post-workout, 600-800 calories for dinner and the remaining 500-800 calories for nighttime snacks.0 -
spittingpink wrote: »Like it says in the title I want to know what peoples experiences are?
I'm currently 306lbs and have dropped from 355lbs by reducing my calories down to 1300 per day (breakfast around 200 calories, lunch around 200 calories, 2x snacks between 100-200 and then my evening meal which is whatever is left). this has worked so far, however I've just got a PT and she has advised I'm not eating enough calories, that I should be eating around 1500 and that I should have 6 meals a day.
I've read some mixed reviews, I'm just wondering if anyone has tried it? does it work? how do you do it? what sort of things do you eat day to day?
Well, you're already at 5 "meals" a day. Close enough on that front in my opinion. If you want add the extra 200 calories as a a snack before bed. The most important thing is how well is your meal/snack timing managing your hunger? If it's really good I'd hesitate to mess with it. But if you're finding yourself more often hungry than not (esp after dinner), no harm messing with it!
As for 1300 vs 1500. How accurate is your logging? If you're not using a scale then 1300 ish is fine since it's a ball park number anyway (so you may have some buffer). If you are using a scale, you could try 1500. I assume that your exercise is about to become more intense now that you have a trainer so a little extra to eat might be needed.0 -
I eat most of my calories in the morning and afternoon. Mainly because I workout for 1.5 hours at 5am fasted and am hungry after. I think getting the right amount of protein, carbs and fat at each meal is more important than timing.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