Meal Timing and Portion Sizes

alexreyn13
alexreyn13 Posts: 52 Member
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
I guess a simple question, does Meal Timing and Portion Sizes matter if you're still in a deficit?

Would someone that has well portioned, scheduled meals throughout the day lose any more weight than someone that banks most of their calories for one specific meal? If your deficit is 1800 and you're planning on having a big meal that can be upwards of 1000 calories, can you simply have much smaller breakfast and lunch plans to fit it into your calories for dinner? Does the body react differently to frequent smaller meals vs less frequent larger meals?

Replies

  • SimplyDestiny96
    SimplyDestiny96 Posts: 4 Member
    I hope someone can answer this, I am also interested if this affects the body in different ways.
  • pinggolfer96
    pinggolfer96 Posts: 2,248 Member
    CICO
    Meal timing is irrelevant
  • emmaprocopiou
    emmaprocopiou Posts: 246 Member
    I don't think meal frequency or timing matters too much. There are many on here that intermittently fast , some that eat 6 small meals a day and some that eat only one large meal a day . All have a common goal they eat at a deficit.

    If I know I am have a large dinner or higher cal dinner I either eat lighter ( not necessarily small in volume though) for lunch and breakfast , or I use up some banked calories for the past days.

    Portion size does matter as that will help you keep at a deficit , but you can still have a large plate of food bulking out with veggies and go easier on higher calorie items like fats - cheese , Mayo, fatty meats etc and higher cal carbs.
    Fats and protein will satiate your appetite so learning correct portions will help in the long run.
    Weight loss shouldn't be punishment, it's all about learning more for your lifestyle change and putting in place good habits for the future.
    Hope I answered this for you x
  • Whitezombiegirl
    Whitezombiegirl Posts: 1,042 Member
    edited April 2016
    Evolutionary speaking 3 set meals were never a 'thing'- so it makes no sense that they would affect us. The only thing I have read about is that going for longer periods of time without digesting food is beneficial to out gut flora and fauna. Rather than regular meals and snacks , it is seeming that 2 meals a day spaced widely apart may have more health benefits. (possibly only slight?). I'm a grazer and I don't think there is much chance of that changing though. My husband has been a one big-meal a day for most of his life. It hasn't harmed either of us that I can tell.

    The only thing that seems to be possibly relevant is eating in the evening. Research is continuing on the affect of circadian rhythm on weight. During the evening fats and sugars are slowly released into the blood stream from stores for use in repair during sleep. Eating will add to this amount. I haven't heard what the possible implications of this are- as the research is in it's early stages - but it's something to watch. Maybe we'll see new 'diet's based on timing in the future- along with our daily gut bacteria pill/ drink and personalised gut profile diet etc. etc.

    I personally find it quite fascinating.
  • abadvat
    abadvat Posts: 1,241 Member
    Easy and fast answer to your question - NO.
    Flick thru researches and articles in the journal of sports nutrition (just to site one) - largely discussed and explained.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    SimplyDestiny96 wrote: »
    I hope someone can answer this, I am also interested if this affects the body in different ways.

    It's an area where studies come up with different outcomes.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20460/abstract found that "High Caloric intake at breakfast vs. dinner differentially influences weight loss of overweight and obese women".
    Overweight and obese women (BMI 32.4 ± 1.8 kg/m2) with metabolic syndrome were randomized into two isocaloric (∼1400 kcal) weight loss groups, a breakfast (BF) (700 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 200 kcal dinner) or a dinner (D) group (200 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 700 kcal dinner) for 12 weeks.
  • gothomson
    gothomson Posts: 215 Member
    I'm no expert but I don't think so. However, I very much try to go on "hunger cue" basis and I find that now I eat healthily I have got to the stage when around a 1 - 1 1/2 hour window I feel hungry about the same time each day because I have gotten into the way of eating at the same time. However, that's not set in stone. Also at the time I would "normally" feel hungry, and I don't, then I don't eat till I do feel hungry. Also Abadvat post pretty much sums it all up.
  • abadvat
    abadvat Posts: 1,241 Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    SimplyDestiny96 wrote: »
    I hope someone can answer this, I am also interested if this affects the body in different ways.

    It's an area where studies come up with different outcomes.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20460/abstract found that "High Caloric intake at breakfast vs. dinner differentially influences weight loss of overweight and obese women".
    Overweight and obese women (BMI 32.4 ± 1.8 kg/m2) with metabolic syndrome were randomized into two isocaloric (∼1400 kcal) weight loss groups, a breakfast (BF) (700 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 200 kcal dinner) or a dinner (D) group (200 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 700 kcal dinner) for 12 weeks.

    Believe the debate and different outcomes are mostly relevant when pulling out specific cases - i.e. obese with metabolic syndrome in the case you posted.
    Generally speaking - "normal people" in "normal conditions" have been case studied and the results seem to point out towards a general consensus - with reoccurring variances based on school of thoughts possibly.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories