One-or-two meals a day...

C

Crysillion

New member
I see something like this posted everywhere. Calorie deficits, is eating 6 meals good for you? But what I really didn't see was something more direct with my situation.

As it stands, I only eat one meal a day and that's dinner. I may snack on a sandwich or something before or even after that, but sometimes all I eat is dinner and that's it. A couple friends told me that this was bad because it was some serious malnutrition, I'm not getting enough nutrients, I'm pretty much just not eating enough.

Now it's not that I'm anorexic or anything like that and I apologize for throwing around that term so loosely, but it's more like... I'm just not "hungry," sometimes I am, but it's not often. It's not that I can't eat either, I really can, it's not that I don't want to, it's that I'm usually too busy doing other things to really have a lot of time for it, plus if I'm not really feeling all that hungry, then I just feel fine in general with it.

But the big question I have is, would this help me lose weight? Now, I definitely realize it's not good for me and I am aiming for a change, but it's been like this for a while and that change won't be for some time.

I know it comes down to calories, carbs, and the like, but really if it's only one meal a day I don't really see how that's an issue unless I'm eating junk food for dinner which is never the case.

I'm just curious, even though it's bad and not exactly a reccomended way of weight loss, with exercise and drinking water, do you think I would lose weight with it regardless? I'm not sure how to be specific with this question, I'm sorry.

Basically I guess I just want to know if I'm screwed on losing weight until I actually eat some more.
 
The short answer is that if your dinner has less calories than what you burn during the day, yes, you will lose weight.

But there is a more complicated answer to that. Our bodies don't usually like only having one meal -- although they survive if they only get that. Our bodies are amazing that way.

They prefer -- in order to function better -- a steady stream of energy (food) in order to burn for your basic bodily functions.

What is the real issue that prevents you from eating three small meals a day?
 
txsqlchick said:
By how much?

Quantify it.
Click to expand...

That would all depend on the person and their general body make-up.
You can't compare apples to oranges. Everyone is different.
Our bodies just work better when they have a steady stream of nutirents coming in.
You don't have to sit down and have a whole meal.
Just about 200 cals would do.
Think of it this way.......
If there was a drought in the middle of summer and all I ever did was water my garden once a day and at that time I didn't even water for how long it truly needed, my garden would not grow or flourish.
However if there were a drought and I were to water it at timed intervals and for a set amount everyday (not to much/not to little) it would be the best looking garden on the block.
Just like the garden you got to make the time to take care of it. Sometimes that is more of the battle than anything else.
 
vegan said:
eating smaller meals more frequently will boost your metabolism too :)
Click to expand...

That's often touted by a lot of the magazines and even some professionals but in the research and anecdotally it really isn't the case. I mean, if higher meal frequency helps you personally in terms of hunger and the like, that's great. I'm not suggesting anyone change that.

But many people can do just as well or even better with a lower meal frequency.

The misunderstanding comes primarily from the thermic effect of food, otherwise known as TEF. It's one component of our metabolic needs. The smallest I might add. The other components include the thermic effect of activity (TEA) and your basal metabolic rate (BMR).

TEF increases after you eat, obviously, as your body works to breakdown and utilize the foods you just ate. Each time you eat, metabolism increases. People took this too mean, "Eat more frequently and boost your metabolic rate."

The problem with this logic is this: If you eat fewer, larger meals... the thermic effect per meal is going to be larger since your body will have to "work harder" to breakdown and utilize the larger food per meal. Thus, you're left with zero net difference in terms of TEF or metabolism.

Same calories spread over more, smaller meals = smaller, more frequent TEF per meal.

Same calories spread over less, larger meals = larger, less frequent TEF per meal.

Hope that helps.
 
Bellaryna said:
That would all depend on the person and their general body make-up.
Click to expand...

Curious what you mean by this?

Thanks.

Our bodies just work better when they have a steady stream of nutirents coming in.
Click to expand...

Some bodies certainly will. Some bodies will be the polar opposite. There's a huge faction of individuals who are doing very, very well with intermittent fasting. Their fat loss is phenomenal and their hunger pangs while dieting are minuscule.

On the flip side, I know people who have tried IF and they hated it.

People's satiety and enjoyment tends to vary greatly depending on the individual response to meal frequency.

Metabolic rate though, doesn't swing much, if at all, relative to meal frequency as noted above.

Think of it this way.......
If there was a drought in the middle of summer and all I ever did was water my garden once a day and at that time I didn't even water for how long it truly needed, my garden would not grow or flourish.
However if there were a drought and I were to water it at timed intervals and for a set amount everyday (not to much/not to little) it would be the best looking garden on the block.
Just like the garden you got to make the time to take care of it. Sometimes that is more of the battle than anything else.
Click to expand...

I don't want to argue, so please don't misconstrue my intent. I simply like discussing this stuff. With all due respect though, our bodies are much, much more complex and dynamic than soil and vegetation.
 
vegan said:
eating smaller meals more frequently will boost your metabolism too :)
Click to expand...

I don't think you're going to experience miracle weight loss with this method.

In the end it's better the way that's going to let you stay within your caloric limits.
 
Steve said:
Curious what you mean by this?

Thanks.



Some bodies certainly will. Some bodies will be the polar opposite. There's a huge faction of individuals who are doing very, very well with intermittent fasting. Their fat loss is phenomenal and their hunger pangs while dieting are minuscule.

On the flip side, I know people who have tried IF and they hated it.

People's satiety and enjoyment tends to vary greatly depending on the individual response to meal frequency.

Metabolic rate though, doesn't swing much, if at all, relative to meal frequency as noted above.



I don't want to argue, so please don't misconstrue my intent. I simply like discussing this stuff. With all due respect though, our bodies are much, much more complex and dynamic than soil and vegetation.
Click to expand...

Hi Steve~
I guess I was going more from my experiance and that of other people that I know who do waaaay better with the eater every 2 hours thing. If I only ever ate once or twice a day not only would I feel like I was dying of hungry but I would most likely rip off someones head! lol
Don't worry I am not misconstruing anything. Sometimes I forget that there are other ways to do things. Not just mine.
I am glad you are here to show all the different angles for us.
Your right we are much more complex than soil and veggies. I tend to give examples alot. Maybe I didn't hit this one on the head? It's all good.
 
Bellaryna said:
Hi Steve~
I guess I was going more from my experiance and that of other people that I know who do waaaay better with the eater every 2 hours thing. If I only ever ate once or twice a day not only would I feel like I was dying of hungry but I would most likely rip off someones head! lol
Click to expand...

You and me both!

Personally I eat every 3 hours or thereabouts. I only speak up when this subject comes up b/c after working with people in the trainer-client setting for a number of years, it became evident that some people felt pressured into eating 5, 6, 7 + times per day and it was stressing them out.

It's seems to be somewhat of a silent rule for weight loss nowadays and I hate to think some people feel they need to pigeonhole their approach into the high frequency concept for no other sake other than following the normal, general advice.

I like the idea of giving people a fighter's chance and that usually requires erasing all the preconceived notions implanted in their minds from garbage magazines and professionals and taking the "touch & feel" approach to individualize an approach for yourself.

I'm sure you'll agree on that... I'm not really directing the above commentary at you.

Don't worry I am not misconstruing anything. Sometimes I forget that there are other ways to do things. Not just mine.
I am glad you are here to show all the different angles for us.
Your right we are much more complex than soil and veggies. I tend to give examples alot. Maybe I didn't hit this one on the head? It's all good.
Click to expand...

I like you :)
 
I'd like to note that the garden idea might be a better match than you realize ;) Roses for example do better with infrequent, but deep watering than frequent, shallow watering. Whereas other plants do better with less water at a time, but more frequent.

It's all about what's best for the individual plant or person though. :D
 
Sorry about not saying much, I just got done moving to another house. Anyway though, it's hard to put into words what I'm getting at. I guess the easiest way to define it is that I'm just not hungry much, when I am I eat, of course, but elsewise I just don't get into it. This ultimately ends up with me eating 1-2 meals a day and by meals I mean one particular thing, not an entree + side(s). Instead of Steak and Mashed Potatoes, I'd usually just end up eating a Steak.

It's just the way I am. I work Logistics/Stocking for Target, so though the physical labor isn't too high, it's still there. Beyond that I'm going to start exercising at home as well, something like a treadmill or one of those bike-things which I can't quite grasp the name of.

I guess that in a whole I was more-or-less wondering if this was any-at-all acceptable for losing weight/becoming more fit in general. Like I said I'm not really sure how much of this works and for all I know, eating less could have a weird effect where I stay overweight, but from what I've been reading here -- clearly not the case, and logically so I suppose.

Now, I know that losing weight is one thing, and being healthy is another, but I'd like to just take this one step at a time. If I could lose weight first just by doing what I always do (tends to be most convenient) and adding in some exercise then that sounds like it would be a good start to me.

Just wanted to make sure I wasn't hurting myself, for lack of better words. It's not like I deal with hunger pains -- I just don't have them.
 
One thing from my own experience is when I cut my calories lower and lower I stopped having an appetite. It got to the point where I wasn't hungry at all. Maybe a little towards the end of the day and a few bites of something was enough that I wasn't hungry anymore. I'd force myself to eat anyway and end up at 1400 calories for the day. I read around here for a while and it seemed I was eating way to little so I upped it back up to 2000 calories a day. It took a couple weeks but my appetite came back, and more energy with it. And the weight also started to come off a lot easier and faster. But like everyone else said its different for everyone. Try a few things out and see what works for you, but it does sound like you need to eat a bit more.
 
I'm with you on that one...I've noticed that when I began cutting calories I actually stopped being very hungry for some reason. I don't know if it's because my stomach is shrinking or what. I mean literally I could go without food sometimes but I force myself to take in my daily caloric intake.
 
^Steve linked to an article thing in another thread that was really useful to me in clearing things up about that

"2) Metabolism decreases due to smaller body mass. Any time at all when you are losing weight, your metabolism is slowly decreasing due to your reduced body mass. The smaller and lighter you get, especially if there is a large drop in skeletal muscle mass, the fewer calories you need."
 
I totally agree with what has been said about every body being different. I personally never lose weight on multiple meals a day. I try it for weeks and all I am is hungry all day long. I eat twice as many calories as I should and I am never ever satisfied. Eating 6x a day just makes me super likely to binge in order to get rid of that stupid 'never feeling full' feeling. On the flip side, I eat about three square meals a day. Sometimes I have snacks in between but rarely and I am more successful in losing weight simply because I don't get hunger pains in between meals. My body likes to feel full and I would rather have a larger meal 3x a day than smaller meals which don't satiate me. I've actually gained weight by trying the 6x a day habit. But of course other people are the inverse so it's impossible to say that any definitive rule about eating is correct except the tried and true, burn more than you eat.
 
I want to make my point clear: I don't believe meal frequency can make or break weight loss.

Caloric totals can.

Whether you spread your calories out over 3 or 6 meals isn't going to matter relative to weight loss.

Total calories will.

So if you're not losing weight, it's not b/c of your meal frequency. Rather, a vast majority of the time it's b/c you're not in a caloric deficit. (I'll certainly add there's other reasons that could cause a lack of weight loss, but that list doesn't include meal frequency)

Granted, meal frequency could screw with satiety, for instance, and thus lead to you eating more calories than you wanted. But that's not meal frequency per se causing the weight stagnation... it's the calories.

Just a random thought.
 
Something that no one has mentioned yet - or maybe it was just overlooked - is this:

This ultimately ends up with me eating 1-2 meals a day and by meals I mean one particular thing, not an entree + side(s).
Click to expand...

Whether you eat one meal, or 3 meals, or 7 meals, you MUST get in some nutritional variety in your diet. You can stall out your weight loss by not getting the proper nutrients. At a very simplistic level, our bodies are programmed for survival. When a body stops getting needed nutrients, it does everything it can to hold on to whatever you're giving it. That can, for some people, result in a stall.

However, even if it doesn't result in a stall, you can damage your body by not giving it proper nutrients. You can lose weight eating nothing but meat, but eventually your body needs other vitamins and minerals or you'll begin to become ill. You can lose weight eating no fat whatsoever, but eventually your body will rebel because you need some healthy fats to function. If you're going to only eat one meal a day, you really do need to make sure that you get a variety of foods into that one meal.

Now the other thing that can happen is that if you only eat one meal a day, you can vastly underestimate the number of calories that you're eating. It's really easy to fool yourself into believing that you're not eating that much because you "only eat one meal". I've done it to myself before ... it sneaks up on you! :)

I know for me personally, I do best when I eat smaller meals throughout the day - it's both physical and psychological for me. If I'm eating frequently I don't have time to get really hungry and go overboard. Some people can better manage the hunger monster and do fine on one or two meals a day ... but again, nutritional variety. Much more important than how often you eat, IMO.
 
That's a good point, thanks.

I didn't bring it up simply b/c the topic of this thread was meal frequency and fat loss... but the point is good nonetheless.
 
I've been eating only two meals a day for a pretty long time. Occasionally on the weekends I will only eat 1 meal and that's dinner. I have found no adverse effects because of this regarding malnutrition. I don't really think I was eating enough good stuff before I started this meal plan anyway haha.

When it's a ll said an done I just find it much more simplier to track how much I eat with just two meals. So moral of this story eat all the meals you want but it's calories that matter. You must run a caloric deficit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top