how to plan
Options
Hdivaj
Posts: 3 Member
My hours at work are from 10:30 am-7pm my days off are split Sunday and Wednesdays i joind the gym we eat alot of snacks at work I just need advice on how to fit it in all together any suggestions?
0
Replies
-
Use your food diary, hit your calorie goal.4
-
I go to the gym early in the mornings. It opens at 6 am and I'm there. In the summer I'm up early enough to run at sunrise before it gets too hot. I also pre-log my food for the day. I plan out everything I'm going to eat, which helps me avoid going over my calorie budget. My office has lots of snacks too, so I try to either keep something healthier in my bag, or have a tea/coffee/water instead of a snack.3
-
I work 60 hour weeks and have 5 kids so I have the same issue. I started to lift after work from 2am to 315am. Mondays were upper body, Tuesday lower body, Wednesday rest with cardio, Thursday upper body, Friday lower body, Saturday rest and Sunday depending if I work or not I'll do heavy cardio with a good carb load up that evening to be ready for the week. Given I'm going for mass and strength and I assume you're going for weight loss or maintaining. If that's the case the only option you have is to eat less snack food and substitute that with 5 small meals a day that consist of protein and light carbs. Cardio at least 3 times a week and a lot lot lot lot lot of water intake. Hope this helps!1
-
Bring your own snacks or don't eat snacks at work, that's the first step. Of course, you don't have to do this, because if you can fit it in your calories you should be fine. But for me I find it easier to cut out snacks (especially unhealthy conference room snacks) so I can have complete meals. And, having snacks isn't an essential part of your job, so you can probably do without.
Try going to the gym before work, or get in the habit after work. I always keep my gym clothes in my car so I can go directly to the gym after work--stopping at home first will always derail me. Sometimes I go on a hike or run on my lunch break. I take the stairs instead of the elevator and go on walks.1 -
Don't eat snacks...the time between your meals gives your body the ability to "fast", and burn fat. Plan what you will eat for your meals, and stick to plan. Simple.2
-
I agree with bringing your own snacks. There is nothing wrong with snacking if it fits in your calorie goals and it is something that works for you! When I work later in the day, I workout beforehand. On one of your days off, could you consider meal prepping? It would make the snacks easier, because you can precut some vegetables and set up some grab and go containers for meals.1
-
Don't eat the snacks at work? Just because they are there doesn't mean YOU have to eat them.3
-
fruttibiscotti wrote: »Don't eat snacks...the time between your meals gives your body the ability to "fast", and burn fat. Plan what you will eat for your meals, and stick to plan. Simple.
Rubbish.4 -
I eat breakfast around 8 AM every day (usually 300 calories). Lunch around noon (300-500 calories). Snack around 3-4 PM. Dinner about 6 PM (500-600 calories). Snack around 8-9 PM. I usually have 100-300 calories for snacks.
I prelog my whole day every morning. I eat food mostly prepared from home. I try to hit my protein goal. I drink.water or unsweetened tea and save calories for food.
I try to walk briskly at least 30 minutes usually in the morning. I exercise at home and do 10-30 minute workout videos usually in the evening.
1 -
andrelittle2323 wrote: »I work 60 hour weeks and have 5 kids so I have the same issue. I started to lift after work from 2am to 315am. Mondays were upper body, Tuesday lower body, Wednesday rest with cardio, Thursday upper body, Friday lower body, Saturday rest and Sunday depending if I work or not I'll do heavy cardio with a good carb load up that evening to be ready for the week. Given I'm going for mass and strength and I assume you're going for weight loss or maintaining. If that's the case the only option you have is to eat less snack food and substitute that with 5 small meals a day that consist of protein and light carbs. Cardio at least 3 times a week and a lot lot lot lot lot of water intake. Hope this helps!
nice!1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »Don't eat snacks...the time between your meals gives your body the ability to "fast", and burn fat. Plan what you will eat for your meals, and stick to plan. Simple.
Rubbish.
Thank you for your articulate and thoughtful response. I guess some people on MFP feel that they are above others and can bully and dismiss others without adding reason or context to their recommendations.
0 -
fruttibiscotti wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »Don't eat snacks...the time between your meals gives your body the ability to "fast", and burn fat. Plan what you will eat for your meals, and stick to plan. Simple.
Rubbish.
Thank you for your articulate and thoughtful response. I guess some people on MFP feel that they are above others and can bully and dismiss others without adding reason or context to their recommendations.
Nutrient timing is irrelevant. If you eat smaller meals, it takes less time to digest/metabolize them; if you eat larger meals, it takes more time to digest/metabolize them. Either way, the end result is the same as long as calories are held equal.
A couple of studies for you:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/199439851 -
fruttibiscotti wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »Don't eat snacks...the time between your meals gives your body the ability to "fast", and burn fat. Plan what you will eat for your meals, and stick to plan. Simple.
Rubbish.
Thank you for your articulate and thoughtful response. I guess some people on MFP feel that they are above others and can bully and dismiss others without adding reason or context to their recommendations.
Nutrient timing is irrelevant. If you eat smaller meals, it takes less time to digest/metabolize them; if you eat larger meals, it takes more time to digest/metabolize them. Either way, the end result is the same as long as calories are held equal.
A couple of studies for you:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
Not sure why you are providing evidence that is contrary to your arguments. The first article is an epidemiological study, which is used to formulate hypotheses for the next step - and actual study that passes or fails the hypothesis. So, pretty useless for basis of an argument. In fact, this study was so inconclusive, the authors were incapable of formulating a hypothesis.
The second article surmises that "Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet". So snacking between meals does not help.
In both cases, the metabolic pathways and insulinogenic dynamics were ignored. In fact, second article says "Evidently within the context of an 8-week diet, there seems to be little difference in changes in appetite over differing degrees of periodicity of eating. It seems that the dietary manipulations that we used in the present study were not robust enough to elicit changes in the concentrations of peptide YY or ghrelin to a degree at which they would have had a significant impact on appetite and a downstream effect on energy intake and ultimately on body energy stores."
0 -
fruttibiscotti wrote: »Don't eat snacks...the time between your meals gives your body the ability to "fast", and burn fat. Plan what you will eat for your meals, and stick to plan. Simple.
This is just broscience. Nothing wrong with snacking if it fits your calories. You won't gain weight if you eat under your TDEE. Science.
If the quoted was in fact true, I would never have lost all the weight that I did.0 -
cerise_noir wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »Don't eat snacks...the time between your meals gives your body the ability to "fast", and burn fat. Plan what you will eat for your meals, and stick to plan. Simple.
This is just broscience. Nothing wrong with snacking if it fits your calories. You won't gain weight if you eat under your TDEE. Science.
If the quoted was in fact true, I would never have lost all the weight that I did.
Really? Insulinogenic effect qualifies as bro science?
For me, snacking induced high insulin levels. I didn't lose weight effectively until I got that under control. I had to cut out the snacking.0 -
No, meal timing itself is broscience.fruttibiscotti wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »Don't eat snacks...the time between your meals gives your body the ability to "fast", and burn fat. Plan what you will eat for your meals, and stick to plan. Simple.
This is just broscience. Nothing wrong with snacking if it fits your calories. You won't gain weight if you eat under your TDEE. Science.
If the quoted was in fact true, I would never have lost all the weight that I did.
Really? Insulinogenic effect qualifies as bro science?
For me, snacking induced high insulin levels. I didn't lose weight effectively until I got that under control. I had to cut out the snacking.
It may have worked for you, but it may not be the case for everyone. Are you diabetic?
You see, I and quite a few others here snack and have lost quite a lot of weight. I've lost a little over 100bs. I snack. I eat sugar. I eat moderate to high carb. Over the last couple of years I've done a few experiments with a months each of keto/low carb, high carb, 6 small meals a day, 3 large meals a day, 1 large meal a day/IF, 5:2, 1 snack 1 meal, 3 meals 2 snacks, nibbling. I've kept the exact same deficit for each of these WOE and guess what? No method was better. I lost the exact amount of weight on all types of WOE. The only way I could lose at a faster rate was if I increased my deficit by cutting calorie further or no eating back calories earned from cardio (I would never eat back lifting calories).
Personally, I know why and how I got fat, and it wasn't because I was eating at the wrong times or snacking itself, or eating too often. I was consuming far too many calories. Once I created a deficit, I lost weight.0 -
fruttibiscotti wrote: »The second article surmises that "Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet". So snacking between meals does not help.
Did you fail to notice, or intentionally omit discussion of the results in the second study?:A 4·7 % decrease in body weight was observed after 8 weeks (P < 0·01) (Table 1). Fat mass ( − 3·1 (sd 2·9) kg; P < 0·01), lean body mass ( − 2·0 (sd 3·1) kg; P < 0·05) and BMI ( − 1·7 (sd 0·8) kg/m2; P < 0·01) were also significantly reduced. There was NS difference in body weight loss between the low-MF ( − 5·3 (sd 3·1) kg) and high-MF ( − 4·6 (sd 2·4) kg) groups. The decrease in fat mass, lean body mass and BMI was not different between the low-MF and high-MF groups.
In layman's terms, the results indicate that it didn't matter either way. Snacking between meals doesn't help (and I never claimed it did in my post); nor does abstaining from snacks (as you did claim in your post).
Meal/nutrient timing comes down to personal preference. Some people experience better satiety and adherence eating more, smaller meals per day; others function better with fewer, larger meals. Given calorically balanced diets, the difference between the two in terms of weight loss is insignificant.
Trying to bring "metabolic pathways" and "insulinogenic dynamics" into the discussion does nothing more than muddy the waters. For people with no metabolic disorders, the difference, if any, wouldn't amount to a hill of beans and is majoring in the minors to the extreme.1 -
fruttibiscotti wrote: »The second article surmises that "Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet". So snacking between meals does not help.
Did you fail to notice, or intentionally omit discussion of the results in the second study?:A 4·7 % decrease in body weight was observed after 8 weeks (P < 0·01) (Table 1). Fat mass ( − 3·1 (sd 2·9) kg; P < 0·01), lean body mass ( − 2·0 (sd 3·1) kg; P < 0·05) and BMI ( − 1·7 (sd 0·8) kg/m2; P < 0·01) were also significantly reduced. There was NS difference in body weight loss between the low-MF ( − 5·3 (sd 3·1) kg) and high-MF ( − 4·6 (sd 2·4) kg) groups. The decrease in fat mass, lean body mass and BMI was not different between the low-MF and high-MF groups.
In layman's terms, the results indicate that it didn't matter either way. Snacking between meals doesn't help (and I never claimed it did in my post); nor does abstaining from snacks (as you did claim in your post).
Meal/nutrient timing comes down to personal preference. Some people experience better satiety and adherence eating more, smaller meals per day; others function better with fewer, larger meals. Given calorically balanced diets, the difference between the two in terms of weight loss is insignificant.
Trying to bring "metabolic pathways" and "insulinogenic dynamics" into the discussion does nothing more than muddy the waters. For people with no metabolic disorders, the difference, if any, wouldn't amount to a hill of beans and is majoring in the minors to the extreme.
The data shows low meal frequency (ie no snacking) lost 5.3 kg in 8 weeks, while the high frequency (snacking) group lost 4.6 kg. so, no snacking lost more weight.
0 -
cerise_noir wrote: »
No, meal timing itself is broscience.fruttibiscotti wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »Don't eat snacks...the time between your meals gives your body the ability to "fast", and burn fat. Plan what you will eat for your meals, and stick to plan. Simple.
This is just broscience. Nothing wrong with snacking if it fits your calories. You won't gain weight if you eat under your TDEE. Science.
If the quoted was in fact true, I would never have lost all the weight that I did.
Really? Insulinogenic effect qualifies as bro science?
For me, snacking induced high insulin levels. I didn't lose weight effectively until I got that under control. I had to cut out the snacking.
It may have worked for you, but it may not be the case for everyone. Are you diabetic?
You see, I and quite a few others here snack and have lost quite a lot of weight. I've lost a little over 100bs. I snack. I eat sugar. I eat moderate to high carb. Over the last couple of years I've done a few experiments with a months each of keto/low carb, high carb, 6 small meals a day, 3 large meals a day, 1 large meal a day/IF, 5:2, 1 snack 1 meal, 3 meals 2 snacks, nibbling. I've kept the exact same deficit for each of these WOE and guess what? No method was better. I lost the exact amount of weight on all types of WOE. The only way I could lose at a faster rate was if I increased my deficit by cutting calorie further or no eating back calories earned from cardio (I would never eat back lifting calories).
Personally, I know why and how I got fat, and it wasn't because I was eating at the wrong times or snacking itself, or eating too often. I was consuming far too many calories. Once I created a deficit, I lost weight.
Nope. I'm not diabetic. And, I don't know if you are telling the truth. You block all info on your profile. My profile is open info...you can see what I eat and how much weight I lost.
0 -
I eat breakfast around 8 AM every day (usually 300 calories). Lunch around noon (300-500 calories). Snack around 3-4 PM. Dinner about 6 PM (500-600 calories). Snack around 8-9 PM. I usually have 100-300 calories for snacks.
I prelog my whole day every morning. I eat food mostly prepared from home. I try to hit my protein goal. I drink.water or unsweetened tea and save calories for food.
I try to walk briskly at least 30 minutes usually in the morning. I exercise at home and do 10-30 minute workout videos usually in the evening.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions