Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
KOALA_BEAR SparkPoints: (17,184)
Fitness Minutes: (1,207)
Posts: 1,045
6/27/13 1:07 A

2 big meals means your body is being overloaded then starved. It think that fasting for four days a months would make more sense. Ever hear about calorie restrictive diets? You get 50 calories on the fasting days - like broth with some vitamins supplements.

I do best eating with 4 to 5 time per day, but have also done 3 meals and 3 snacks or desserts. Due to my schedule it usually doesn't work out that way tho. I normally try to stay between 1350 and 1500 cals as I'm 5'8" so try to eat a little bit less to stay satisfied but keep below my maintenance level. It's hard.

A perfect day is a protein smoothie with banana or other fresh fruit for breakfast, sandwich and soup or salad for lunch; chicken, fish or meat with veggies and half a baked sweet potato for dinner. Snack might be hummus & crackers, or apple & 1T PB or diet jello. I like to have OJ or limeade sometimes so I dilute it a lot more than usual just to get some flavor & a little "C" with my minerals before bed.

If I wake up during the night with low blood sugar, that's usually when I'll have some soy milk or juice. Portions really matter, as does filing up with veggies, limited fats, and a bit of protein at each main meal.

I rely heavily on kale or spinach, eggs, soy or tofu, and seasonings. The more I skip sweets, the better off I am - it doesn't start a vicious cycle. If I do have some, I try to eat a mini pack of M&Ms or bite size candy bar.

Some days are better than others - it isn't monotonous but it is easier to stick with certain foods although I recognize we all need variety and micronutrients, and think spreading them out allows us to better absorb the goodness.


JENNILACEY SparkPoints: (77,176)
Fitness Minutes: (72,994)
Posts: 2,489
6/26/13 10:27 P

I was correcting you, not attacking you.

You don't base your calorie range on your goal weight, you base it on your current calorie needs. You create a daily -500 cals from maintenance to lose 1 lb/week or -1000 cals for a 2 lb/week loss. It is *not* recommended to go below 1200 cals if you are a woman because you will likely not be meeting your daily nutrient requirements on less than that amount. However, you are correct... a *sedentary* 200 lbs woman could drop to 1300 cals a day but she would lose weight eating anything under 2000 cals (1 lb/week on 1500 cals), she would not need to eat under 1300 cals to lose weight and never exceed that amount.

I was assuming most people include exercise in their program. I lose on anything less than 1600-1900 cals even though I am 5'2 115 lbs because I exercise. If I wanted to be 100 lbs and I ate only 1000 cals with my calorie burn, it would be detrimental to my weight loss. How much you exercise will play a large part in how much you should eat to lose weight. So you can't just base your calorie range on the weight you wish to be. I've seen time and time again, women dropping to far too low of a calorie range and experiencing slow or non-existent weight loss.

I have no clue why you're discussing BMI?





Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 6/26/2013 (23:25)
MANDIETERRIER1 Posts: 13,751
6/26/13 8:31 P

I generally lose weight when I average 1300-1500 calories

WADINGMOOSE Posts: 1,044
6/26/13 3:46 P

Additionally, height can be how you set a weight goal, but it has little to nothing to do with how you reach that goal.

My calorie intake and/or output do not change based on height. I'm sure someone has done a study or is currently studying this, but as far as I'm aware, height has no bearing on anything weight loss related.

WADINGMOOSE Posts: 1,044
6/26/13 3:43 P

I lose weight when I eat 1500 cals or so a day. When I eat less, I stop losing weight.

I get my nutritional information from sources other than a special K box or Jenny Craig.

Different things work for different people, but if I had to eat 1300 calories of food I don't like, I wouldn't last long at weight loss. Ditto if I only ate 2 meals a day - doesn't work for me and triggers binging. But others obviously can succeed at 2 meals a day. I'm happiest with 5-6 meals and food with more nutritional value than Special K.

BREWMASTERBILL SparkPoints: (31,080)
Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
Posts: 4,110
6/26/13 3:17 P

You've completely lost me. What are you talking about?

CRISSTARA SparkPoints: (2,400)
Fitness Minutes: (75)
Posts: 33
6/26/13 3:16 P

http://www.healthchecksystems.com/heightwe
ightchart.htm

I'm 5'3" so with my medium build I should be at 135 pounds

So NOT only height but also the size of your body.There are body builders.

Here's another link http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesit
y/BMI/bmicalc.htm

Edited by: CRISSTARA at: 6/26/2013 (15:18)
CRISSTARA SparkPoints: (2,400)
Fitness Minutes: (75)
Posts: 33
6/26/13 3:11 P

Furthermore I weighed at 200 pounds I was eating 2000 Calories I was NOT losing weight I was maintaining it.

CRISSTARA SparkPoints: (2,400)
Fitness Minutes: (75)
Posts: 33
6/26/13 3:09 P

There's alot of factors you forgot what about height?That plays a lot.I'm not a know it all I'm still learning.I've gone to a nutrionalist & I also joined Jenny Craig.I stopped going b/c of health issues,I had to quit my job & be put on disability.I also said To each their own & do what works for yourself.There's no need for attacks.Just read & learn from each other.

JENNILACEY SparkPoints: (77,176)
Fitness Minutes: (72,994)
Posts: 2,489
6/26/13 1:32 P

Crisstara- that is not true. A person who weighs 200 lbs *does NOT need to* nor should they eat less than 1300 cals to lose weight. They would probably not want to drop much below 1500 cals while losing weight.

The minimum a woman should eat while losing weight is 1200 cals and that is more for a *petite* and sedentary woman. Recommending that a 200 lbs person should eat around this amount and should not eat above 1300 cals (or they won't lose) is not only completely incorrect but a detrimental and severe calorie restriction from their maintenance calorie needs. I suggest you better research your information and not take diet advise from a cereal box.

I'm 5'2 115 lbs and *lose weight* eating anything less than 1600-1900 cals a day. I reached my lowest weight of 107 lbs eating 1500 cals most days with 1-2 days a week @ 2000 cals.

Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 6/27/2013 (15:26)
CRISSTARA SparkPoints: (2,400)
Fitness Minutes: (75)
Posts: 33
6/26/13 12:41 P

B/c of my stomach issues I've been drinking Slim Fast 2 meals breakfast & lunch Calories anywhere from 250-200 depending if I put fruit/bananna in it.Then I have dinner about 300 Calories & if I snack it's either pretzels,Popcorn,hard boiled egg anything 100 Calories.I've also been taking Hydroxycut Gummies this has really curbed my appetite this I'm shocked is working for me.The first 2 weeks it didn't then it started kicking in & my hunger has gone down.If you weigh 200 pounds & you'd like to lose weight & weigh 130 pounds then you need to eat only 1300 Calories & maintain your weight & not go over the 1300 Calories.I got this off a Special K box.So if you need to weigh 110 then eat 1100 Calories,120 then you only eat 1200 Calories,130 weight then you should only consume 1300 Calories etc.This has really helped me & also I HATE Fat Free the taste but however it does help keep me in my goal of Calories intake.I use seasoning like Mrs.Dash or Italian Seasoning etc.a lot too,not too much salt.For Sugar I love Stevia or the off brand like Meijer's it's cheapier especially for cooking/baking goodies.Also I love Crystal Light/Mio/Dasani water Enhancement.I don't drink soda as much 1-2 cans a day of diet.

MANDIETERRIER1 Posts: 13,751
6/26/13 12:36 P

I like to eat four times a day. It regulates my blood sugar and helps to keep me from binging.

Other people may feel fine with two meals a day. One has to find out what works for them and what they can stick with in the long run.

RENATARUNS SparkPoints: (3,938)
Fitness Minutes: (2,155)
Posts: 1,236
6/26/13 10:26 A

I also dislike the hassle that comes with eating 5 times a day (for me, I've never tried six). But I find that I'm so much less likely to get overly hungry or to slip into bad grazing habits if I keep my main meals on the smaller side and make up the difference with planned snacks, than if I try to stick with only three for too long. (I've never even considered two.) It's a pain, but so be it.

APPEALSTOME Posts: 5,067
6/25/13 3:01 P

I use to eat two meals daily because medication I take caused lack of appetite, but I did not lose, sometimes gained weight and developed diabetes, etc. Eating two large meals daily put strain on my heart. I felt tired when I exercised and 1-2 times ate a lot of snacks at night. Nutritionist and trainer suggested I force myself to eat three meals daily. Took a year, but now I eat 3 meals daily and 4 meals when I go to gym. Reversing diabetes naturally required me to eat at least 3 meals daily.

IAMLOVEDBYYOU Posts: 370
6/25/13 2:26 P

I had trouble time and time again with the "6 small meals a day" idea that many diets seem to push. It doesn't work for me. I tried time and time again and always was unsatisfied. Then I realized, hey, I'm different! And that's okay!

I'm sure eating 6 small meals a day works for people, but I find that I do much better with two big meals. I want to FEEL hungry, and I want to FEEL satisfied. I have certain guidelines to ensure that I am making healthy choices. I eat at least 7 servings of vegetables a day, no sweets after 8pm, and don't buy junk food or heavily processed food. My first meal is always a giant smoothie- greek yogurt, spinach, banana, strawberries, bran cereal, flax seeds. It's 400 calories! If I feel hungry mid-afternoon, I have a glass of milk. Then I eat a big dinner and a dessert, usually around 5 or 6.

The other reason that this works for me is that I HATE meal prep. I hate bringing tons of food to work. I hate carrying around the cooler. I hate being in the middle of something and thinking, "It's snack time, I need to eat now!!!" and eating an apple and cheese stick while driving home from work. I just don't like all the hassle that goes along with it. I like my "drinkable" breakfast I can drink while working. I like that 2% milk is the perfect balance of fat/protein/carbs to give me energy and make me feel full without ruining my dinner. I like that I can focus on making one delicious, filling, balanced meal per day and don't have to think about cooking all the time. I also like that if I go out with friends, I don't have to get grilled chicken and steamed vegetables every time.

I'm not saying anything about the article. I'm just saying that it works for me!



ANARIE Posts: 12,488
6/25/13 12:38 P

What ever happened to good journalism? People stopped paying for it. You can't get a permanent, salaried job as a reporter anymore. You get paid per piece, or worse yet per click. If you only get $25 for an article and you spend 3 hours traveling to the conference and listening to the talk, you can't afford to spend another 3 hours reading the actual study you're reporting on, much less look up information about family meals in the Czech Republic or e-mail other scientists to ask what they thought.

When journalism pays less than flipping burgers or mopping floors, you're not going to get good reporting.

KARA623 Posts: 727
6/25/13 11:16 A

Oh, and Jennilacey, I'm the same way. I do everything "wrong." I eat a very small breakfast usually, and my biggest meal is dinner, typically around 7:30-8PM, go to bed by 9:30, workout before bed and sleep like a baby. It's been awhile, but I've been told not to do what I do many times in the past. I've just kept my mouth shut on the way to my goal.

I think it's human nature to want to plug your way as the best, but we're all different. Some people can't touch sugar because it causes major cravings. I cut back my consumption of sugar to almost nothing by having it occasionally in pre-planned, single servings. If I eat at 6:30 pm, I will wake up hungry in the middle of the night. I think each one needs to be open to suggestions that are healthy sounding but find what works best for him/herself.

Edited by: KARA623 at: 6/25/2013 (11:17)
KARA623 Posts: 727
6/25/13 11:08 A

Some people do better on just a couple of meals a day. For me, I was working to kick a long battle with boredom and emotional, borderline compulsive overeating, and what worked best was to schedule planned meals and snacks, taking note of the times of the day that were "danger zones" for me personally. I've lost 127 lbs eating 6 small meals and very small snacks plus sometimes an extra banana for preworkout.

The main benefit to me was that it trained me to be satisfied on small quantities of food. I can still overeat if given the chance, but I'm miserable, and it's nowhere near the amount I used to be able to put down. So I'm a passionate proponent of several meals and snacks a day with the understanding that my way may not work for everyone.

JENNILACEY SparkPoints: (77,176)
Fitness Minutes: (72,994)
Posts: 2,489
6/25/13 10:07 A

Notice I said "dieters" in reference to people who follow bro-science (wive's tales) for weight loss. I don't consider the majority of people on Spark to be the "dieters" I was referring to since the general consensus around here is leading a "healthy lifestyle". emoticon

I most certainly agree. We must find what works best us as an individual. We are all so different in what our bodies require, what fits into our lifestyles, our dietary preferences/concerns and what healthy habits we can maintain for the long-run.

As far as number of meals go, like I said earlier. It's going to affect everyone differently based on your fitness requirments, individual diet requirements, time management, health concerns etc. What matters is that you eat in a way that's going to give your body the nutrition it requires at the times it requires it. I think when it comes down to weight loss/weight management, the most important thing is find the number meals that will keep you satiated throughout the day so you don't overeat and that will definitely vary from individual to individual.

Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 6/25/2013 (10:53)
BREWMASTERBILL SparkPoints: (31,080)
Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
Posts: 4,110
6/25/13 9:28 A

DRAGONCHILDE SparkPoints: (57,496)
Fitness Minutes: (14,252)
Posts: 9,662
6/25/13 9:25 A

JENNILACEY - I certainly don't hate you. ;) Then again, I'm not a dieter, so.

I'm the same way. My standard pre-bed snack tends to be peanut butter toast. I usually work out on an empty stomach (unless it's a really intense, long workout, then I'll grab a shake or a banana), I never skip the carbs, and I too respond well to weight training even when on a deficit.

Sounds to me like you've learned what I have: Conventional wisdom rarely is. ;)

ELMA1913 Posts: 5,051
6/25/13 9:25 A

I don't think so - especially for a diabetic who needs to keep their blood sugar level throughout the day.

JENNILACEY SparkPoints: (77,176)
Fitness Minutes: (72,994)
Posts: 2,489
6/25/13 9:12 A

Lol... see, I actually hate that proverb; eat breakfast like king, dinner like a pauper... etc.

I have never been a big breakfast eater. I just can't stomach a big breakfast in the morning and I can't eat before I workout. Digestion seriously zaps my energy and workout performance. I also suffer runner's stitches if I eat before I workout. I get killer (in a good way) workouts on an empty stomach.

My meals get progressively larger as the day goes on. I tank up before my nightly fast. I'm busier during the day, bedtime is when I feast. I eat dinner at 8pm. I eat around 300 cals; a lean protein, a large portion of fibrous carbs and a starchy carb. Then at 10pm before bed I have a Greek yogurt parfait with fruit, nut butter and Kashi Go Lean, high protein, high fiber cereal (another 300 cals).

I guess I'm the type that dieters all love to hate. I do everything wrong according to bro-science; eat a ton before bed, a lot of carbs after 6pm, workout on an empty stomach, I build muscle on a calorie deficit and the weight just slides off me.



Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 6/25/2013 (09:22)
KKKAREN SparkPoints: (216,849)
Fitness Minutes: (87,796)
Posts: 11,711
6/25/13 6:17 A

I tend to go with the mini meals but have recently started eating a big breakfast which could put me back to 2 to 3 meals instead. I was never hungry to eat breakfast but it does keep me going longer until lunch. Whenever I eat out I plan on eating only 2 meals to make up for the extra calories, salt and oil.

ITSABSURD SparkPoints: (18,393)
Fitness Minutes: (9,226)
Posts: 713
6/25/13 3:23 A

That's interesting.

My meal frequency varies dramatically from day to day for me. On nights that I work, I may only get in 2 full meals and a cliff bar snack, where on my days off, I'm eating smaller meals more frequently. I don't pay it much attention.

MCFHARPIST SparkPoints: (37,870)
Fitness Minutes: (35,609)
Posts: 1,406
6/25/13 3:05 A

CRISSTARA, you are so right about this fabulous site. I can't say it enough, "Chris Downey, you ROCK! I will forever be indebted to this wonderful, kind, brilliant man for bringing us Sparkpeople at NO COST. I can't say it any better than you, CRISSTARA, but here it goes again, "Wow!"

Spark On!

MCFHARPIST SparkPoints: (37,870)
Fitness Minutes: (35,609)
Posts: 1,406
6/25/13 2:59 A

Whatever happened to good journalism? It's downright scary!

CRISSTARA SparkPoints: (2,400)
Fitness Minutes: (75)
Posts: 33
6/25/13 2:56 A

To each their own it really depends on the person & how their feeling & what their thinking.Most people are emotional eaters.I'm on a calorie diet b/c of what the site has recommended for me 1200-1500.I noticed b4 I was eating way more calories than I should have been.Like when you go to McD's or Wendy's GOD in one meal it would be like 800 calories.I wish the fast food restaurants would have a side for under 100-200 calories meals for us to choose from,instead of $.99 meals to choose from.I'm eating 3 meals a day & 3 snacks with being on Spark People.That's me though.

I've been with Spark People which I really do love the layout of the site.I love the fact that it monitors everything for you & with NO CHARGE?COST I mean WOW!! I hope there never will be either b/c I am on a budget,which sucks.

ANARIE Posts: 12,488
6/25/13 2:47 A

This is one more example of bad journalism making it look like research says something it doesn't really say.

This wasn't a published study; it was a presentation at a conference about ongoing research. At research conferences, you toss out preliminary findings to an audience of other researchers so they can get excited and start trying to figure out why you're getting those results... including errors in your design that you didn't notice. People present research that's not finished and might change. That doesn't mean the study is bad; it's like showing a rough cut of your film at an editors' and directors' workshop to get ideas on how to finish it. It might end up telling a different story from what you thought you were shooting. About half of the research presented at conferences never gets published-- sometimes because the researchers know from the beginning that their conditions weren't controlled enough or they didn't have enough participants. If you have a study that wasn't big enough or got "meaningful but non-significant" results, you present it at a conference so you get points toward tenure and network with other people, and chances are that someone else will think it had merit, get a grant to do it bigger, and invite you to be a co-author.

This study was 12 weeks, with 54 people, who were obese (BMI 32 on average) and have type 2 diabetes, in the Czech Republic. We don't have enough details to know how many groups they were divided into (sounds like 3), whether anyone confirmed whether the participants really followed the schedule they were supposed to, etc. When you have fewer than 20 people per group, the difference could be due to one or two people having unusually good or bad results. It's also possible that:
--results are different if you're not diabetic
--results would be different for people who are not obese
--the participants were on medication that affected the outcome
--there's a cultural factor at play-- maybe the mid-day meal is a more important family event in the Czech Republic, so saving up most of your calories for lunch means less disruption to relationships that make you happy, and the happiness means you "cheat" less or move more or something.
--it all goes haywire and flip-flops in week 14.

One of the early low-carb "studies" was like this. The researchers did an early conference presentation, and reporters picked it up and printed "low-carb diets are better!" stories all over the place, even though the researchers themselves had said, "preliminary results suggest... may... possible... further research is needed..." During the conference, another research noticed that there were more men in one group, and since for various reasons the study measured pounds rather than percentages, that was skewing the results. The researchers themselves, if I remember right, then realized that the low-carb group had a much higher quit rate, so only the really determined people were left in that group. They fixed those things and the difference between the two diet groups basically disappeared, but the reporters had already reported and weren't interested in hearing any more. The researchers went home and finished their study, and found that after a while the difference between the groups fizzled out, and by the end of a year, the moderate-carb group was actually quite a bit ahead. The researchers tried to get that news out, but reporters didn't care. "Old-fashioned balanced diet works okay but takes forever" doesn't sell magazines.

None of this means that there's anything wrong with the study that started this thread as far as scientists are concerned; it's just not ready for prime time. I'm pretty sure that even the researchers wouldn't tell you to change your mealtimes if your current schedule is working.

And I have to say, on a personal level I want it to be "right." It's what works for me; mini-meals mean endless grazing for me, and I do much better with fewer, larger meals so I can have more, especially if I'm eating with other people. I'd rather skip snacks than sit down to a group meal with my plate only 1/3 full and have to explain my whole eating plan.

ANGELZBABE100 Posts: 63
6/24/13 6:39 P

I prefer 2-3 meals. It is just easier if you don't have the time or luxury of being somewhere where you can eat (some people may have very busy lives/jobs that leaves little time to snack or eat a bunch of meals).

Some people prefer small meals because they only go 2-4 hours without food and then eat again and so on.

Your calorie amounts for each meal also counts though. If you eat 2-3 meals but over 1,000 calories on each, then you are not doing yourself any favors. Likewise, eating 500-800 calores for 4-6 meals a day will not work either unless your body needs over 2000 calories. Balancing the calories per meal is the ideal, no matter which meal frequency you choose. It will also depend on what fits into your schedule, what your body reacts to and all that.

Edited by: ANGELZBABE100 at: 6/24/2013 (18:40)
BREWMASTERBILL SparkPoints: (31,080)
Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
Posts: 4,110
6/24/13 2:27 P

Well, I became overweight eating two meals. I lose and maintain weight eating two meals. The key variable here is not your meal frequency, the key variable is your intake.

MELJONES3478 SparkPoints: (15,754)
Fitness Minutes: (6,082)
Posts: 505
6/24/13 2:25 P

This is just my personal experience but for most of my life I ate only lunch & dinner and ended up being over weight. Since the beginning of my journey, I now eat breakfast, lunch, dinner and 3 snacks and I stay between 1200 - 1500 calories (most days). I have lost around 55 lbs. This seems to work better for me and it is manageable for my lifestyle.

GDBEAR65 SparkPoints: (2,095)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
Posts: 574
6/24/13 1:23 P

I seriously doubt most people would be happy eating 2 large meals per day. Theoretically it may work, but the reality is there are many people who so enjoy eating there's no way they'd be able to stick with it. IMO most people need to eat every 3 to 4 hours. And most of us are raised on getting three square meals plus a couple of snacks throughout the day, so changing to eating only 2 large meals per day would be very difficult.

CUDA440 SparkPoints: (65,627)
Fitness Minutes: (57,464)
Posts: 7,309
6/24/13 12:04 P

I had tried eating something about every 2 hours or so, and that just wasn't working. So now me and the kids eat about every 3 hours. Seems to fend off any headaches for the kids.
Breakfast at 8ish, lunch about 11:30, snack about 2:30, and dinner around 5:30or so. I don't pig out and eat a ton at each time, just enough to keep me going.

Beckie

MCFHARPIST SparkPoints: (37,870)
Fitness Minutes: (35,609)
Posts: 1,406
6/24/13 11:50 A

I agree. There is a study out there for everything whether it needs it or not!

I loved the ancient proverb in the article:
Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper.

Literally, words to live by.

Spark On!

JUSTEATREALFOOD Posts: 1,452
6/24/13 10:28 A

I usually eat 3 big meals a day, with no snacks. High fat, moderate protein, lower carb meals keep me full for a long time.

Everyone's different though, find what works best for you.

KCLARK89 SparkPoints: (26,324)
Fitness Minutes: (15,946)
Posts: 1,078
6/24/13 10:06 A

It definitely is personal preference; I'm part of the multiple meals/day (like 5-6 which includes snacks). Yesterday though, I only ate lunch and dinner because my boyfriend and I were out visiting, which was AWFUL because my stomach hated me by dinnertime.

DRAGONCHILDE SparkPoints: (57,496)
Fitness Minutes: (14,252)
Posts: 9,662
6/24/13 9:44 A

I'm sure that for some people, that's true; it certainly seems to be for me; I do better with two large meals and one small one.

However, that won't hold true for everyone. Each person is an experiment of one, and what works for me won't work for you.

Some people find that multiple small meals a day works best. PErsonally, I go crazy, and hate it. Can't stick with it. Others stick with 3 squares. I like to have a good breakfast, a light lunch, an enormous dinner, and snacks occasionally.

Don't worry about timing it... what matters at the end of the day is your calories, how many you've eaten versus how many you've burned. Not what time of day you ate them, how often, etc. Timing meals is all about staving off cravings.

BREWMASTERBILL SparkPoints: (31,080)
Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
Posts: 4,110
6/24/13 9:12 A

Unfortunately, only the abstract is available for the study, so it's hard to say how they arrived at that conclusion and what they used for measuring and if the calories were truly controlled. So I'm skeptical that one meal frequency is superior to the other.

I think we can draw one conclusion though, meal frequency is irrelevant. Eat at a frequency that allows you to hit your calorie goals more consistently. That's it. I like 2 meals a day, personally. Anyone who pushes their meal frequency as superior likely does not have evidence and is just repeating what they've been told without question.

SIMONEKP Posts: 2,561
6/24/13 8:20 A

you can find a study to support anything, I think it's a matter what works for each person.

JENNILACEY SparkPoints: (77,176)
Fitness Minutes: (72,994)
Posts: 2,489
6/24/13 7:47 A

I think there is a "study" out there for every side of the coin. Personally, I just find what works best for me and how many meals a day are best to keep me from overeating (satiated), give me the most energy for my workout and meal timing is also important for me to build muscle/burn fat simultaneously. I imagine it depends on the person, especially if they exercise and what kind of exercise they do.

Eating only two meals a day played a large part in my becoming overweight in the first place. I'd eat lunch and then dinner at 8pm and pig out due to the psychological food deprivation during the day.

I switched to 5 meals a day when I started losing and that has worked the best for me.

Recently I tried 6 meals a day and it was disastrous. Never feeling a good healthy fullness after a meal made me obsess over food! I think it played a big part in my recent evening (when my wits weren't about me and I was weak) binge eating.

Now I'm trying 4-5 meals a day and for the first time in awhile I feel satisfied when I'm done a meal. I don't find myself thinking anymore, "I wish I had more food!!" I'm good and I can move on.

So I think it's more about experimentation and what number of meals is going to keep you (general "you") satisfied to prevent overeating. If you find yourself obsessing over food (like me) it may be time to try a different strategy!

But I think if I were to consume 700-800 cals in a single meal, I'd feel sick. Unless I was eating calorie dense, refined/processed foods. It's very difficult to consume more than 300-400 cals of whole, clean foods.

On the study: It was on people with Type 2 diabetes and "The data, in a small study involving 54 patients, were presented today at the American Diabetes Association meeting in Chicago."

I would like to see a much larger study with broader demographics used before I jump on this bandwagon. There are so many variables left to be desired in explaining how this study was conducted. There is also no mention of who performed this study... very odd. Most articles would have included that, yet they claim they've debunked a major study performed and published in the British Journal of Nutrition? Was it the Diabetes Association in America? It just says they presented the findings in Chicago but not that they performed the study.

There is also no mention of what kinds of food they were eating. Sure I could easily rack up 700-800 cals at McDonalds in a single sitting but try eating that many calories of whole veggies, legumes, fruit, whole grains and lean protein. The type of food eaten would play a major part in how satiated the person would be after a meal. If a person only ate 300 cals of chips (quite easy to do), they'd be starving shortly after and prone to consuming more calories at their next meal but if they ate a lean protein, a ton of veg and some healthy fats for 300 cals, they'd feel much more satisfied at their next meal and less likely to consume too many calories.

Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 6/24/2013 (08:17)
MCFHARPIST SparkPoints: (37,870)
Fitness Minutes: (35,609)
Posts: 1,406
6/24/13 2:57 A

A new study suggests 2 big meals are better for weight loss than 6 mini meals. What do you think?

Here's the article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-23
/two-large-meals-a-day-tops-six-mini-m
eals-for-weight-loss.html

Page: 1 of (1)  




Other Diet and Nutrition Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
Truth about Whole Grains, including Whole Wheat 10/13/2013 4:34:41 AM
Sodium 11/10/2013 1:10:12 PM
Totally craving cheese... 11/20/2013 12:25:51 PM
Dietary Restrictions - What can I eat? 12/28/2013 10:48:34 AM
Carbs and the mid-day sleepies 9/23/2013 2:29:31 PM

Diet Resources: blood pressure hypertension | hypertension blood pressure | how to lower blood pressure