(Almost) Fasting All day to eat indulgent dinner?

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

Fatloss is about overall weekly calorie intake. Meal timing has almost nothing to do with it. There is actually a diet like that OMAD, One Meal A Day.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Overall, my answer would be that it's fine, as long as it doesn't hinder your compliance with calorie goal or cause other problems for you personally.

Examples of problems that are low-probability but could happen, just mentioning a couple to be clearer about what I mean: Eating a big dinner could hinder sleep quality, causing next-day fatigue (so move less, burn fewer calories; or spike appetite). Skipping calories earlier in the day could soft-pedal energy that day, with similar effect on daily life movement or exercise intensity.

Effects like that tend to be very individual, won't happen to everyone, so your subjective experience is what really counts here.

I'm also assuming that either way, you're striving to get adequate overall decent nutrition. Nutrient timing could have a tiny effect, but I personally wouldn't worry much about that at your age as long as your subjective perception is good. (Older people can have some issues with nutrient timing in a context of higher risks of lower absorption of certain nutrients.)

I feel like you may believe (be worried about) some other things that are common ideas in the blogosphere, but not all that evidence based.

eslteacheramy wrote: »

Hi!

I am on a strict 1200 calorie a day diet due to the fact that I'm 37 female, 5'1 and want to lose 30 pounds. My SW on 1/2/24 was 146 and my GW is 115. I only weigh myself once a month because the stress of daily weigh ins would stress me out. So on 2/2, I weighed 138.5 so I lost about 7.5 lbs the first month. According to the calculators, my maintenance calories are 1700. Therefore, I guess I need a calorie deficit of 500 calories to lose weight. I can only exercise on weekends since I have very long work days, so M-F I have to stick to 1200.

Here, I'm with Lietchi. Your loss rate defines your deficit, once you have 4-6 weeks (whole menstrual cycles) of experience data you can use to figure out average loss rate at a given calorie level and activity routine. MFP, a calorie calculator or a fitness tracker are just giving you statistical estimates, essentially the average for people demographically similar to you. You're an individual, so may vary from average for non-obvious reasons.

Under-eating (losing too fast) is a poor plan, a thing that increase health risks, eventually cause rebound appetite, limit good nutrition (which is actually about absolute values of some nutrients, not percentages), trigger appearance compromises (thinning hair, brittle nails, sallow/haggard), have negative functional effects (weakness, fatigue).

I'm not saying bad things are guaranteed to happen, just that risks increase with speed of loss. You're probably fine losing a pound a week for a while yet, but the switch to 0.5 should be in the plan IMO. I'm a believer in losing at most 0.5-1% of current body weight weekly, with a bias toward the lower end of that unless severely obese and under close medical supervision for deficiencies or complications. For you, at 138.5, that range would be around 0.7 to 1.4 pounds per week, ideally closer to 0.7, and you're a bit above the top end of that so far. (I admit that some of the early loss could be water weight loss from dietary changes).

Anyways, I was wondering if anyone every eats very little during the day so they can enjoy a nice big dinner and dessert? I have been trying to watch my sugar intake (I am a huge sugar addict and for once in my life, I'd like to try to get a somewhat flat stomach which can't be done if you eat excessive sugar).

I don't think excess sugar within calorie goal would cause observably more belly fat, other than the very limited sense that getting too little protein (especially) or other nutrients could have some negative implications. for muscle mass.

A somewhat flat stomach is most likely to result from reasonable calories, reasonable exercise (cardio and strength), and adequate nutrition. (But don't believe the degree of flat that some "influencers" claim. We have a uterus, so a bit of lower belly rise is common from that (even with low body fat).

I do understand that too much sugar may drive out adequate nutrition at appropriate calories, or put a person over calorie needs if getting adequate nutrition . . . at least that's what WHO says about excess sugar being a problem. (Well, that, and dental cavities.)

I may've suggested this to you elsewhere, but I found that getting more fruit reduced my cravings for more calorie-dense but nutrient-sparse foods like baked goods or candy. That won't work for everyone, but I'm not the only one here who's found that to be helpful.

However, on Fridays, after a long work week, I just want to have an enjoyable meal. I also do this on Saturdays sometimes since I want to go out to eat, but I exercise, so I feel I'm okay if I eat a little over 1200.

If you're selecting a somewhat aggressive weight loss rate, plus not eating back exercise calories generally, that can be a path to faster than ideal weight loss. If I were you, I'd eat most of them back routinely. It's fine to defer them to a different (soon) day.

That said, in general: Any day you eat above calorie goal but under true current maintenance calories, you can expect to lose body fat, just a little bit more slowly. That's fine objectively, as long as its fine subjectively with you. In my view, sometimes eating a bit above goal can be worth that small delay in reaching goal weight. In the truly rare special case, I'd even eat over maintenance, and be happy with that decision, personally.

Will it ruin my weight loss journey if I indulge in a 900 calorie dinner/dessert combo once or twice a week? Is this really bad for metabolism/health ?? Don't judge but I really want to go to McDonalds and get a hamburger, fries and hot fudge sundae and zone out on the couch Friday night.

No, it's not bad for your metabolism or health, at least not in any major way that you wouldn't notice. (Example, again low probability: Some people find that their tolerance for high fat food decreases as they lose weight, so eating that way once a week might cause digestive distress.)

Also, within reason, anything that helps you stick with your calorie goal long enough to reach goal weight, and doesn't hinder your ability to stay at that weight long term, is a good thing. Compliance with sufficiently reduced calories is the one non-negotiable for weight loss. (That's true whether the person counts calories or not.)

BTW if any of the things I said about weight loss I got wrong, please advise or any suggestions! Being a 5'1 female is so not fair for weight loss!!!

Everyone has a "hard" or "not fair" when it comes to weight management, seems like. Being petite can increase the challenge in some ways, sure. At 37, pretty much guaranteed that your metabolism hasn't slowed due to aging. (That doesn't much happen because of age until around 60.)

IMO, there's no point - and it can be destructive - to focus on "it's so hard" or "it's not fair". I've typed this so many times that some other oldies' eyes are already rolling: The smartest sign in the world is one we see everywhere. It says "you are here". Here is the only place from which we can take our next steps toward any goal.

IMO, the only point of thinking about obstacles is to figure out how to get over, around, through or otherwise past those obstacles. Thinking about how hard or unfair it is is a waste of good time and energy.

I'm not a blithe twenty-something saying this: I'm a 5'5" 68 y/o menopausal female, severely hypothyroid (medicated), with various physical issues (most thankfully minor, TBH). I was overweight to obese for 30 years, lost around 50 pounds in just under a year, have been in maintenance for almost 8 years since. I'm currently around the BMI you're aiming for (22.0 today, vs. the 21.7 you're aiming for).

In general, it sounds like you're on a good course now. Keeping loss moderate, getting exercise when you can (including some strength challenge), and getting reasonable overall nutrition should be helpful given your goals.

Eventually - probably soon - it will be time to think about whether your current eating and activity habits are what you'll need to maintain that healthy goal weight long term. It's good to experiment, learn and practice new permanent habits while there's still that cushion of a calorie deficit to catch any oopsies. Staying at goal weight is IMO the real prize, and that relies on figuring out habits that can operate pretty much on autopilot when other parts of life get challenging (because they will). If we do that, maintenance is a simple matter of adding back a few calories daily, and keeping on with the practiced eating/activity habits - simple. By contrast, "lose weight fast then go back to normal" is a recipe for yo-yo weight.

If eating McDonald's once a week is part of your personal sustainable permanent habit set, it's good to practice that now.

Best wishes!