Eat most of your daily calories at one time

[BFskinner]

It is often suggested that those who want to lose weight should eat many smaller meals throughout the day. It is also said that we should not eat our big meal in the evening.

I'm wondering, though, what if someone eats a couple of very small meals/snacks during the day, and the eats the remainder of the calories at night.

So if a person eats 600 calories through the day, and then eats 1,100 calories in the evening "fun meal"... what's the problem?

If you body needs, say, 2,200 calories to maintain it's weight... it seems that the math should still result in weight loss.

I am not an overweight person, (5'11", 164 lbs) but I have been playing around with weight loss over the last two months to observe the effects. The combination of not-pigging-out and daily aerobic exercise has already made my pants require a belt! Two months ago, I weighed 175.

Nevertheless, I am guessing that I am reaching the point were what little "thick skin" remains will be rather resistant.

 

[maleficent]

it's total calories consumed in the day that matter -not so much when they are consumed...

But numbers aren't always 100 percent -they're approximates - just because you're in a 500 calorie a day deficit doesn't mean that you will see a 1lb difference on the scale..

 

[Steve]

You might want to check out some of the intermittent fasting stuff.

IIRC, is an interesting read.

 

[txsqlchick]

You might want to check out some of the intermittent fasting stuff.

IIRC, is an interesting read.

On that guy's blog he reviewed a book called the "metabolic repair manual" and gave it an overall positive review; what are your thoughts on that? (Sorry for the hijack.)

 

[Steve]

Leigh, the author of that book, is a moderator here. She doesn't come around much anymore. From what I gather, she's pretty damn busy. Must be real busy b/c I dropped her a PM on another forum and she never responded.

But she did send me a copy of this book to read when she released it and it was a quality read. She shares many of the same ideas I have with regards to metabolic repair of the chronic dieter.

Most here though would not need something like this. At least not most of the people I come across here.

She has another book called the Fat Loss Troubleshoot or something like that. It's a basic book. But basic isn't bad. Together they're a nice package.

 

[txsqlchick]

Leigh, the author of that book, is a moderator here. She doesn't come around much anymore. From what I gather, she's pretty damn busy. Must be real busy b/c I dropped her a PM on another forum and she never responded.

But she did send me a copy of this book to read when she released it and it was a quality read. She shares many of the same ideas I have with regards to metabolic repair of the chronic dieter.

Most here though would not need something like this. At least not most of the people I come across here.

She has another book called the Fat Loss Troubleshoot or something like that. It's a basic book. But basic isn't bad. Together they're a nice package.

I have some ED in my past so I do worry about the damage I've done to my metabolism.

I might check them out; I respect your opinion so the Steve Stamp of Approval means a lot.

 

[Steve]

If you've gained weight since your ED, chances are good that you reversed any 'damage' you did.

Metabolic slowdown is part of dieting, extreme or not.

The way to reverse it is by eating. If you eat enough to now have a weight problem, which I don't really know your case... but chances are you're clear. Especially if you've been using sound tactics to lose weight and they're working.

 

[txsqlchick]

If you've gained weight since your ED, chances are good that you reversed any 'damage' you did.

Metabolic slowdown is part of dieting, extreme or not.

The way to reverse it is by eating. If you eat enough to now have a weight problem, which I don't really know your case... but chances are you're clear. Especially if you've been using sound tactics to lose weight and they're working.

I didn't know that. At one point I was around 90lbs at 5'6" with a medium frame; I'm not petite or small-boned.

Right now I weigh between 231 and 232lbs, which is 80+lbs over a "healthy" weight for my height.

I think my tactics are relatively sound but they could always be better. My diet is still not the greatest in terms of nutrition and I'm still transitioning into a healthier way of eating. In the meantime I'm taking a multivitamin. I also hit the gym 6x a week to do cardio and strength training. So far I've lost a shade over 25lbs since July 5th.

 

[Steve]

So you admittedly have some 'cleaning up' to do in your approach. But perfection shouldn't be expected so that that for what it's worth. And you're losing weight.

I wouldn't worry about metabolic damage.

 

[txsqlchick]

So you admittedly have some 'cleaning up' to do in your approach. But perfection shouldn't be expected so that that for what it's worth. And you're losing weight.

I wouldn't worry about metabolic damage.

Oh definitely, I have some cleaning up to do. I'm still experimenting with different dishes and trying different ways of cooking/preparing foods that I confess I am not really fond of...like most vegetables. I'm ashamed to admit it but I don't really care much for most vegetables. I was not raised eating a healthy diet. My mom will eat most vegetables but my father is very much a meat and potatoes kind of man, and he dictated what she cooked.

I ate broccoli for the first time at age 30 (I'm now 33). No joke. I ate turnips for the first time at age 30. Same with rutabaga. I wish I was kidding but sadly, I'm not. Living in the UK forced me to expand my palate particularly since my ex-husband, while not a strict vegetarian, did not like to eat much meat. He also didn't like all of the same vegetables that I like. I like peas, he wouldn't eat them. He liked asparagus, I hate it. Most of the time we ate carrots, parsnips, broccoli, potatoes, tomatoes, chard, and green beans since we both liked them (and I grew about half of that list in my backyard). I no longer have a yard so I can't grow my own veg and I'm spoiled by the taste of homegrown veg.

I apologize to the OP; I've really hijacked his original thread now!

 

[BFskinner]

Big gulp dieting and metabolic chat

alright hijackers... I guess the metabolic issue is one part of the question.

But, let's say I eat only one meal a day... and that 1,500 calories is my appropriate "weight loss" intake.

So, if I eat all 1,500 in a single meal, can my body absorb and utilize those calories in a manner similar to eating normally distributed meals?

Is it possible that, with such a high dose of calories in one sitting, that a greater % of the calories "pass through" your system as waste?

Are there any other possible disadvantages? (other than being hungry all day!)

With respect to metabolic slowdowns, I am curious as to whether it is a slam dunk scientific fact... or is it the product of diet gurus and casual observation?
Do metabolic slow downs, if true, occur in all dieting people? all dieting organisms in general?

Further, at what point does a metabolism slow down?
At the exact caloric diet needed to maintain?
At 80% of that maintenance diet?
At the subsistence level?

 

[Steve]

With respect to metabolic slowdowns, I am curious as to whether it is a slam dunk scientific fact... or is it the product of diet gurus and casual observation?

It's scientific fact.

Do metabolic slow downs, if true, occur in all dieting people?

Yes.

all dieting organisms in general?

Organisms?

Well I know people and animals experience reductions in metabolic rates in the face of a hypocaloric diet.

I'm not sure about microorganisms and the like... I've never seen one of them diet, lol. I'm sure they have some natural, systemic features though that strive to maintain homeostasis.

Which is all the reduction in metabolic rate people experience while dieting is.

Further, at what point does a metabolism slow down?
At the exact caloric diet needed to maintain?
At 80% of that maintenance diet?
At the subsistence level?

Unanswerable questions.

I mean, the moment you start losing weight, your body requires less energy. Less size means less energy input required.

You seem to be wanting very specific answers though and those you are not going to find as it's different for each person.

In general though, speaking very broadly, reductions in metabolic rate going above and beyond what would be expected given a drop in body weight aren't much of a concern until you are lean trying to get leaner.

But I use that term, lean, very loosely. I've seen women with a good bit of fat on them still having troubles with losing weight in the face of a hypocaloric diet.

Your body's regulatory systems are much, much more diverse and complex than you realize.

Shit, they're complexity goes well beyond the most well researched people.

See things like: Leptin, insulin, thyroid, etc, etc.

 

[LaurenS11]

I dont think I would be able to do this...I get full fast when eating, plus I will get hungry again later and not get satisfied. Although I bet this method will work with many people.

 

[BFskinner]

OK....

So, let's say I don't diet... I just eat the usual 2500 or so calories daily.

But... I exercise for 1.5 hours daily burning maybe 1000 calories.

Now, in effect, I'm eating only 1,500 calories.

Would this result in the same kind of metabolic slow down if I were to simply do a 1,500 calorie diet and yet remain sedentary?

You mention that, having lost weight, the body requires less energy. But I don't think that this is what is meant by "metabolic slowdown" in general. People refer to the metabolic slow down in reference to some sort of bodily compensation in which the body attempt to conserve energy. Of course, you know that... so I'm not sure what you are saying with respect to the "less energy" statement.

Kelton

 

[Steve]

OK....

So, let's say I don't diet... I just eat the usual 2500 or so calories daily.

But... I exercise for 1.5 hours daily burning maybe 1000 calories.

Now, in effect, I'm eating only 1,500 calories.

Would this result in the same kind of metabolic slow down if I were to simply do a 1,500 calorie diet and yet remain sedentary?

Energy deficit is energy deficit.

It doesn't matter how that deficit is established. Think of it like this: Your body keeps tabs on energy stores and intake.

You mention that, having lost weight, the body requires less energy. But I don't think that this is what is meant by "metabolic slowdown" in general. People refer to the metabolic slow down in reference to some sort of bodily compensation in which the body attempt to conserve energy. Of course, you know that... so I'm not sure what you are saying with respect to the "less energy" statement.

You missed this part of my post:

In general though, speaking very broadly, reductions in metabolic rate going above and beyond what would be expected given a drop in body weight aren't much of a concern until you are lean trying to get leaner.

And this part:

See things like: Leptin, insulin, thyroid, etc, etc.Kelton