Best meal split to lose fat?

+1 to what Lietchi said.

What number of meals/snacks is best for fat loss? The schedule that keeps you feeling tolerably full most of the time, and energetic all the time . . . which differs by individual, anything from one meal a day to continuous all-day grazing on small snacks, or anything in between. Try things, see what works for you.

At constant calories, the weight loss results will be about the same. (The scale may differ a tiny bit with schedule, because of how much food/drink is in your system on its way to becoming waste at the time you weigh in. That's not about changes in body fat, so who cares, really?)

Some women need to eat as few as 1200 calories to lose weight . . . typically, those are women who are some combination of older, relatively inactive, short, and with relatively little weight to lose. Other women, who need more calories, eating that little? Bad plan.

I lost most of 50+ pounds in less than a year at 5'5" and age 59-60 (plus hypothyroid) eating 1400-1600 calories plus all carefully-estimated exercise calories - so 1400-2000 gross calorie intake most days. I maintain a weight in the 120s pounds now at pre-exercise calories around 2000, up to 2500 and occasionally more with exercise. I'd lose stupid-fast if I ate 1200 total calories daily, with bad health consequences. That wouldn't be true for everyone . . . but be careful, eh?

The idea that all women need to eat tiny numbers of calories in order to lose weight . . . that's just inaccurate. Any of us needs to find the right intake and eating schedule that gives us sensibly moderate weight loss, alongside feeling reasonably full/satisfied so we can stick to it, and having a good energy level so we don't reduce calorie burn by dragging through our day.

Fast weight loss is not necessarily healthy weight loss, or even successful weight loss.

Be aware your "ideal" meal split may change over time. A decade ago, I ate five meals per day (breakfast, lunch, dinner, snack, bedtime dessert), roughly equal calories in each. These days, I eat two meals, again evenly split.

It really doesn't matter very much. Do what you can stick with because compliance is important.

dunnkatelyn77 wrote: »

@Lietchi I'm F, 5'5, 206ibs, 27 years old. I know fast weightless is not good. I've lost 110 ibs already but unfortunately my doctor wants me to lose 10ibs before I have my next blood work appointment in a month. With my stats that puts me at 6778 cals per week if I run 5 times a week.

Since you've already lost weight, are you basing your calculations §6778 kcal per week) on your actual rate of loss compared to your actual intake?

Losing 10lbs in a month sounds like an unhealthy goal if it means that you have to eat less than 1000 calories per day. But perhaps your doctor sees larger health risks associated with your weight than the risks of fast weight loss? High blood pressure, blood sugar problems,...
I really wouldn't recommend eating that little unless for a short period of time and under close supervision from a doctor (risks are heart failure, gall stones,...) but obviously, I know nothing about your health situation.

Aside from the issue of the number of calories, I'd say you're best off spreading your calories in a way that suits you best: both throughout the day, or even throughout the week. Adherence is much more important than the minute differences that meal timing might have on your metabolism.

dunnkatelyn77 wrote: »

@Lietchi I'm F, 5'5, 206ibs, 27 years old. I know fast weightless is not good. I've lost 110 ibs already but unfortunately my doctor wants me to lose 10ibs before I have my next blood work appointment in a month. With my stats that puts me at 6778 cals per week if I run 5 times a week.

Very low calorie diet have been prescribed by doctors for decades. They're always for shorter durations and generally for a specific reason. Maybe ask your Dr.