Food Diary ... less is NOT more.

I think it is better for your metabolism, to eat regularly.

Myth.

stop reading what people write kind of simple plus i will cheer for my friends here but my main focus is me and my personal trainer who also does my diet plans says it total fine for me to have 2 cheat meals a week do i sure do will i sure will am losing inches and pounds and do i have more energy sure do. everyone's body is just not the same they will either figure it out or they will not for each his own.

Absolutely nothing wrong with having a cheat meal once or twice a week. Hell, I have mine every Sunday. BUT it's not an everyday ordeal. According to your "friends' it's absolutely fine to eat bad food everyday. Who knew eating McDonalds, Burger King, and/or Wendy's was healthy.

Absolutely nothing wrong with having a cheat meal once or twice a week. Hell, I have mine every Sunday. BUT it's not an everyday ordeal. According to your "friends' it's absolutely fine to eat bad food everyday. Who knew eating McDonalds, Burger King, and/or Wendy's was healthy.

http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/#cleandirty

I am amazed at the public food diaries I see. I don't understand how my MFP peeps expect to lose weight cramming all their calories in one, maybe two meals.

I'm not so sure it really matters when you eat your calories. There are some days I eat half of mine in one meal, but hasn't hindered me in the slightest. The body doesn't care if you eat three meals, two or seven.

Actually it does. I mean you will see your self lose weight by just counting calories and staying under a certain number, but you would be even more successful by eating more low-calorie meals in a day. The more meals you eat in a day the more "exercise" your metabolism gets. If you eat all your calories in one meal, your metabolism is "turned off" or however you want to put it...So when you start eating, it takes time for your metabolism to catch up to you, not burning off as much as you could if you spread out your calories in your day with more frequent meals. It then doesn't have a chance to completely shut down, allowing for it to be active at the beginning of your meals instead of in the middle of it.

Actually, you're wrong. Scientific studies, many of which have been referenced with links in this discussion already, show that you're wrong.

Now, personally, I prefer eating 4-6 small meals daily because I have never liked the feeling of a full stomach and get filled easily. I also work from home so that's easy for me to do. But I don't for a single second pretend that this is a superior way of eating to rev up my metabolism. (Well, actually, I used to think that until I learned I was wrong.)

Anyway, point is, as long as people are meeting their calorie and macro-/micro-nutrient targets most of the time, they will lose weight and be healthy in the process.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, so if I eat Big Mac's and Whopper Combos everyday, but stay in my "macro-/micro-nutrient" I will be healthy? Think you so much for clearing this up for me. And all this time, I thought fat and greasy foods were bad.

If you can hit your macros and micros properly, then yes, it would be perfectly healthy. Hitting your macros and micros means hitting the appropriate levels of carbs, fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc. What you eat to reach those limits does NOT make a difference to your body. Your digestive system doesn't know the difference between a Big Mac, and a Paleo friendly homemade version. It just sees the molecular components of the food, the amino acid chains, fatty acids, etc. As long as you hit your total calories, and hit the proper amount of macros and micros, you will be perfectly healthy.

hmmmmmmm... interesting...
There are 576 calories in a Big Mac. 292 of those calories are from fat. But wait, it has 31 grams of protein, so it has to be healthy. Hold on, I need more carbs because my body burns carbs really fast because I only eat once a day. So, let me go ahead and super-size my fries. That's a whopping total of 172 grams in carbs. No, not complex carbs, but simple carbs. You know the kind of carbs that are linked to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc? Wow, that's a grand total of roughly 1200 calories in one meal. But as long as I burned 50 calories at the gym I'm good because of a calorie deficit. I'm a healthy 31 year old that looks 50 years old.

By the way, I ordered a diet coke with that meal because YOU KNOW I don't want to go over on my macros because of a soft drink.

Are you always this obtuse? 172 grams of carbs will last the exact same amount of time in your body whether you eat them all at once, or split them up.

Quick lesson in how the body processes food. Let's say you burn 100 calories an hour, for a TDEE of 2400 calories a day.

Now, you eat 2000 calories in one meal, and fast for the rest of the day. Your body will process that meal, and burn what it immediately needs, and store the rest. For the next 24 hours, your body burns the food you ate, which takes up 20 hours to burn off, and uses fat reserves for the remaining 4 hours, putting you at a caloric deficit of 400 calories.

Now, let's say you eat those 2000 calories spread out over 5 meals, let's say 3 hours apart, and 400 calories a meal.

You eat your first meal, and your body burns 300 of the 400 calories you eat, before you eat again, and again the body burns 300 out of the 400 calories you eat when you eat your third meal. At this point you're at a 200 calorie surplus. So 3 hours pass, you burn 300 calories more, and eat your 4th meal. So far you've eaten 4 meals, for 1600 calories, and you've burned 1200 calories for the day. So now you eat your final meal. You've eaten 2000 calories, and you've burned 1500 calories. It's been 15 hours, which leaves 9 hours left in a 24 hour day. In those final 9 hours, you burn the 500 calories left over from your 5 meals, and 400 calories from stored fat. So, eating 5 meals a day leaves you at a deficit of 400 calories.

So whether you eat 1 meal, or 5 meals, you burn the same number of calories, and burn the same amount of fat. It's 100% personal preference how many meals you eat, and has no impact on how much fat you burn or store in a 24 hour period.

As for the type carbs, french fries and hamburger buns are starches, which are complex carbs. Carbs are carbs, the simple vs complex debate is filled with so many fallacies and myths I don't even want to get into it. If you control for the right amount of calories, carbs are meaningless, unless you have a metabolic disorder.

did anyone ever hear the old saying "The only thing worse then a reformed smoker is a reformed wh*re?" as s smug ex-smoker it seems to me that the only thing worse then a reformed wh*re is a reformed over eater!

My husband usually eats one huge meal a day. Sometimes he will have lunch or a few handfuls of peanuts. Works for him. Whats the big deal? From reading your reply's it looks like you knew exactly what you were doing when you started this thread. Some people need the attention. I am glad you got it.

So whether you eat 1 meal, or 5 meals, you burn the same number of calories, and burn the same amount of fat. It's 100% personal preference how many meals you eat, and has no impact on how much fat you burn or store in a 24 hour period.

^ This. I attempted to lay this out earlier in this thread but apparently it wasn't received.

I made a compilation post about it here as well, just in case people here are interested in actually reading what the big players in the bodybulding/nutrition game have to say about it (not me obviously, I'm referring to the authors I'm listing in the below thread):
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/529002-a-compliation-on-meal-frequency

Thanks for the info buddy. I didn't realize the "big players' were following these guidelines. I'm all set.

He has to be a troll. Trying to keep the forums lively.

^^ Exactly...