Been eating less than 2,000 calories a day for a week and gained weight

tyrindor wrote: »

show previous quotes

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

singingflutelady wrote: »

Can you cite the research you mentioned? Interested in reading it.

Your guess would be as good as mine. I read about it 5 something years ago when my "1 big meal a day" diet wasn't working as well as I hoped, made the switch and always thought it was a miracle worker since the pounds started flying off. When I asked my doctor about it, he told me it was better to eat small meals over 1 big meal, so I always assumed that's what caused it.

I won't throw out the fact it could have just been sheer luck that my body decided to start losing weight significantly faster the same time I made the change, but personally I prefer 5 small meals a day so I don't feel like changing it up just to test that theory.

The way you phrased it here I take no issue with. Yeah, it is subjective and for some people they will find achieving their weight loss goals comes much easier if they have smaller meals scattered throughout the day.

I personally found that to be true myself. I also found it much easier to control my weight loss if I ate 5 meals rather than 2.

But it isn't because your metabolism goes into "high gear". That isn't how metabolism functions.

That's all I was trying to say... I just assumed it was keeping my metabolism high and that's why it was working. Maybe it somehow broke my weight loss plateau, maybe my body just prefers regular eating, maybe it was just sheer luck. I really have no clue.

At the end of the day, I don't think eating 1 big wendies meal a day is healthy at all (even if you lose weight or not), which was my original point. The point of losing weight is to be healthy, so the OP should really rethink what he is trying to accomplish.

show previous quotes

stanmann571 wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

toxikon wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.

Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.

Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.

I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.

There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.

FIFY

I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.

I've literally made the same big meal, separated it out in to 5 meals and ate it throughout the day.. versus eating the whole thing at night. The weight lost difference was significant for me despite eating the exact same thing. (Again, half a pound a week versus 2-2.5 pounds a week).

Wait, you made the exact same big meal and separated it into 5 meals for a substantial period of time, documented the results, and then switched to eating the exact same food/amount of food in one meal for another substantial period of time and documented those results?

How long did you spend on each plan?

Edit: I see you ate the exact same quantity of the exact same foods for four months straight. Why did you choose to do that?

About 2 months doing 1 big meal versus 5 small meals. Same food quantities each day. It made a significant difference for me. People can tell me I'm wrong, but I really don't care. I was the one seeing the results!

To answer your edit, I was super lazy back then. I found it easier to just make a week worth of meals in advance and put them in containers.

janejellyroll wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

toxikon wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.

Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.

Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.

I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.

There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.

FIFY

I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.

Actually, you're exactly wrong.

IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.

If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.

Yup, I'm wrong.

5 years ago, I just made the same exact meal for about 2 months straight and ate it all at once right before bed and I lost only 7 pounds. Then I started making the same exact meal but separating it out to 5 small bowls and eating it throughout the day. The result was 32 pounds in roughly 2 months.

I asked my doctor why that is, and he said the same thing. Some people need regular frequent meals or their bodies slow down and don't get rid of fat as fast.

I'll keep doing what works for my body. I've been dieting again for almost 2 months now, and it's been a near steady 2.5 pounds/week.

How did you measure your activity during this period?

0 exercise, wake up, sit in a chair 15 hours straight. I was super lazy, had no job and played games all day every day.

Getting up out of the chair 5 times vs 1, as well as the other associated activity could easily account for the difference.

Just as one possible theory.

But you should submit yourself to science, I'm sure they would love to study you.

Also, without knowing what the components/makeup of this meal were, especially as you apparently weren't measuring it makes your account an interesting anecdote only.

I guess it could just be more movement throughout the house, but it was 7 vs 32 pounds over the same time spam. That seems very significant, even extreme exercise couldn't make that difference I'd think.

If my theory of high metabolism isn't true, then perhaps it was just a plateau or the fact my body took 2 months to react fully to the new diet. I still stand by eating 5 small meals a day is way healthier for you than 1 giant meal though.

tyrindor wrote: »

show previous quotes

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

singingflutelady wrote: »

Can you cite the research you mentioned? Interested in reading it.

Your guess would be as good as mine. I read about it 5 something years ago when my "1 big meal a day" diet wasn't working as well as I hoped, made the switch and always thought it was a miracle worker since the pounds started flying off. When I asked my doctor about it, he told me it was better to eat small meals over 1 big meal, so I always assumed that's what caused it.

I won't throw out the fact it could have just been sheer luck that my body decided to start losing weight significantly faster the same time I made the change, but personally I prefer 5 small meals a day so I don't feel like changing it up just to test that theory.

The way you phrased it here I take no issue with. Yeah, it is subjective and for some people they will find achieving their weight loss goals comes much easier if they have smaller meals scattered throughout the day.

I personally found that to be true myself. I also found it much easier to control my weight loss if I ate 5 meals rather than 2.

But it isn't because your metabolism goes into "high gear". That isn't how metabolism functions.

That's all I was trying to say... I just assumed it was keeping my metabolism high and that's why it was working. Maybe it somehow broke my weight loss plateau, maybe my body just prefers regular eating, maybe it was just sheer luck. I really have no clue.

At the end of the day, I don't think eating 1 big wendies meal a day is healthy at all (even if you lose weight or not), which was my original point. The point of losing weight is to be healthy, so the OP should really rethink what he is trying to accomplish.

show previous quotes

stanmann571 wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

toxikon wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.

Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.

Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.

I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.

There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.

FIFY

I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.

I've literally made the same big meal, separated it out in to 5 meals and ate it throughout the day.. versus eating the whole thing at night. The weight lost difference was significant for me despite eating the exact same thing. (Again, half a pound a week versus 2-2.5 pounds a week).

Wait, you made the exact same big meal and separated it into 5 meals for a substantial period of time, documented the results, and then switched to eating the exact same food/amount of food in one meal for another substantial period of time and documented those results?

How long did you spend on each plan?

Edit: I see you ate the exact same quantity of the exact same foods for four months straight. Why did you choose to do that?

About 2 months doing 1 big meal versus 5 small meals. Same food quantities each day. It made a significant difference for me. People can tell me I'm wrong, but I really don't care. I was the one seeing the results!

To answer your edit, I was super lazy back then. I found it easier to just make a week worth of meals in advance and put them in containers.

janejellyroll wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

toxikon wrote: »

tyrindor wrote: »

You can't just eat 1 big meal a day. It's terrible for you, especially a insanely high sodium meal. You want 3-5 small meals a day to keep the metabolism running, and you want them to be healthy. Lots of fruits, veggies, very little processed foods, etc.

Sorry but this isn't true. Meal timing has very little effect on metabolism and weight loss.

Many people practice intermittent fasting / OMAD (one-meal-a-day, also called the Warrior Diet) with success. I personally have 2 meals a day and it works wonderfully for me.

I can't really lose weight eating 1-2 meals a day. I tried, my body just holds on to everything and I lose like half a pound a week. 3-5 small meals a day with the same amount of calories, I lose 2 to 2.5 pounds a week.

There's been research to why this is, and eating regularly keeps your body working in high gear because it assumes you are getting regular meals it comes down to logging accurately and satiety.

FIFY

I log accurately, you burn more calories throughout the day if you eat 3-5 meals a day versus 1-2 meals a day because it keeps your metabolism burning longer.

Actually, you're exactly wrong.

IF there is ANY benefit to one way or another, it goes to IF, because of the intersection between fasted cardio and metabolic/thermogenic limits on how many calories per hour your body can process.

If one were to eat 6000 calories in a single meal, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would only allow processing a percentage of that, OTOH, if one were to eat 6000 calories spread out over 16 hours of wakefulness, the metabolic and thermogenic processes would metabolize more of those calories to glucose and body fat as required/appropriate.

Yup, I'm wrong.

5 years ago, I just made the same exact meal for about 2 months straight and ate it all at once right before bed and I lost only 7 pounds. Then I started making the same exact meal but separating it out to 5 small bowls and eating it throughout the day. The result was 32 pounds in roughly 2 months.

I asked my doctor why that is, and he said the same thing. Some people need regular frequent meals or their bodies slow down and don't get rid of fat as fast.

I'll keep doing what works for my body. I've been dieting again for almost 2 months now, and it's been a near steady 2.5 pounds/week.

How did you measure your activity during this period?

0 exercise, wake up, sit in a chair 15 hours straight. I was super lazy, had no job and played games all day every day.

Getting up out of the chair 5 times vs 1, as well as the other associated activity could easily account for the difference.

Just as one possible theory.

But you should submit yourself to science, I'm sure they would love to study you.

Also, without knowing what the components/makeup of this meal were, especially as you apparently weren't measuring it makes your account an interesting anecdote only.

I guess it could just be more movement throughout the house, but it was 7 vs 32 pounds over the same time spam. That seems very significant, even extreme exercise couldn't make that difference I'd think.

If my theory of high metabolism isn't true, then perhaps it was just a plateau or the fact my body took 2 months to react fully to the new diet. I still stand by eating 5 small meals a day is way healthier for you than 1 giant meal though.