meals a day, calories and metabolism

[IHateMyJob2004]

3 meals a day most were raised to say.

Some fitness publications say 5 meals a day.

I do 2 meals a day with a small snack at night because I am in a calorie deficit while trying to loose weight. I try to avoid breakfast and when I do have breakfast it is usually a thick slice of wheat bread.

So, does my w meal a day habit actually have negative consequences?

Here is my typcial day:
7 am: one scoop of whey (via beverage) on my way to work at around 150 calories
11:30 am: Large salad that is maybe 300-400 calories
5:30 PM: dinner that ranges between 400 and 800 calories.
9 PM: snack (300+ calories, usually whatever I want but I cap my daily intake at around 1500) Sometimes includes a whey beverage if I lifted weights that night.

Is this acceptable in terms of metabolism?

 

[-TC-]

The amount of meals you eat in a day doesnt matter. Do what best works for your schedule and eating habits.

 

[purbeast0]

what is your current weight? 1500 calories is low for an adult male. i would think that you would be putting your body into 'starvation mode' at that few calories which would cause your metabolism to slow to a crawl.

also looks like you are getting very little protein, although you don't mention what is in your salads or dinners.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I am 200 pounds right now. 2400 or so is maintenance. on top of tht I lift weights and run on occasion. So realisticly, I am burning about 2900 on days that I exercise.

I probably go over 1500 on average. I know I have ~2000 calorie days 1-2 days a week.

But regardless, I am crious about effects on metabolism. Not worried about starvation mode as I am aware of that risk.

 

[mple]

Meal frequency and timing have little to do with overall body composition. Just get your targeted daily cals in. Could be 1 meal a day or could be 6. Psychologically it can have a big impact since some people (like myself) simply can't train fasted and others prefer to sleep immediately following their largest meal. As for your 1500 kcal diet. What's the hurry to lose all that weight? The bigger your deficit, the more lean body mass your body burns. I weigh 133lbs and lose 1lb/week consuming a little over 1700kcals. Outside of lifting 4 days a week I'm largely sedentary.

 

[tedrodai]

I'd say as long as you eat the proper calories/nutrition for the day and find a comfortable schedule to keep hunger down and energy level sufficient it doesn't matter how often you eat. Varying the # of meals / day is more of a gimick to help you stay on track with your diet. Some people find that smaller but more frequent meals help them with hunger/energy/or some such, some find the opposite is easier.

 

[purbeast0]

I am 200 pounds right now. 2400 or so is maintenance. on top of tht I lift weights and run on occasion. So realisticly, I am burning about 2900 on days that I exercise.

I probably go over 1500 on average. I know I have ~2000 calorie days 1-2 days a week.

But regardless, I am crious about effects on metabolism. Not worried about starvation mode as I am aware of that risk.

well if your body is in 'starvation' mode, your metabolism is at a crawl.

i weighed 215 - 217lbs before i tried to lean up a bit. i lost 10lbs in about 2.5 months. i was probably getting around 2000 calories or so when trying to lean up, maybe a tad more. on the weekends i would definitely get more (due to alcohol + eating out). out of those calories, it included 3 protein shakes that were probably close to 150g of protein on the shakes alone.

i also lift 4x a week and was doing cardio 2-3x a week, for no more than 12 minutes at a time. i did not lose THAT much strength (dropped from a 315lb max on bench to 295 max, went from repping 275lbs 5-6x to more like 3-4x) and noticed pretty much minor strength losses in pretty much all exercises. but that comes with the territory when losing weight, and don't think i lost too much strength considering i got down to 205lbs.

i know that is total anecdotal but figure i'd just give you an example of someone in a similar weight class.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I've been loosing about 1/2 pound a week for 15 months now. So, maybe a 250 calorie defiit a day on average. That's fine. Right now I am trying to make a push to get from the 198-204 pound range to the 193-197 pound range. I can do it in 2-3 weeks if I stay strict. I know Friday's dinner is going to be very bad for me since I'm eating out. So over 7 days, I want to average 1500-1700 calories.

As for starvation mode. I try to shoot for 1500 calories a day. And 1-2 times a week I'll probably have something like 2000-2500 calories. And some cheat days in the past I've done 3000-4000 calories.

So, the risk is going in to much of a calorie deficit such that I enter starvation mode and that can screw with metabolism. And the whole 3 meals a day thing is myth.

 

[Doppel]

People at bodybuilding.com, many of whom are quite obsessed with nutrition, basically all support the ideal that multiple meals/day is irrelevant. You can do one meal in a day if you want. And the science backs this afaik. Simply, your metabolism does not at all--NOT AT ALL--slow down between meals on a given day.

Additional to this, even on reduced calories the metabolism slows only slightly, and it takes a long time to do it; starvation mode is more or less not a thing. The metabolism does slow but to any significant degree it requires a drastic cut in calories and of course since millions throughout history have starved it's clear that the body cannot cut its metabolism so much that it doesn't starve to death.

http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501

This is the key point about it:
http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode

in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment <- there's much more online about this one's results

 

[melchoir]

Starvation mode is a myth. If you stop losing weight restrict calorie intake further or perform additional exercise. You WILL lose weight, period.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I'm 5'5 131 pounds right now. Used to be 215 six years ago (135+-10 for four years). Currently I'm generally eating breakfast (either a muffin or omelette) lunch (usually a chunk of meat and some carbs) and maybe a small snack later. Slowly losing weight like this although I'm going to have to change it up since I'm around the weight I need to be. All the different diets I did rarely involved a lot of little meals, they always involved eating less than I was burning though. Starvation mode doesn't actually happen unless you actually starve yourself and there are outward signs (severe fatigue/etc).

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Starvation mode is a myth. If you stop losing weight restrict calorie intake further or perform additional exercise. You WILL lose weight, period.

This isn't true at all. In many cases, your body can reduce its BMR by up to 30% if you're taking in too few calories. I get that number from a research paper I posted on her a while back. I don't have time to find it now, but you can look it up. If you're below your typical BMR, your body will go into a starvation mode. How far under you are will indicate how much it drops, but it's definitely not a good thing if you're trying to lose weight and maintain muscle mass.

 

[melchoir]

This isn't true at all. In many cases, your body can reduce its BMR by up to 30% if you're taking in too few calories. I get that number from a research paper I posted on her a while back. I don't have time to find it now, but you can look it up. If you're below your typical BMR, your body will go into a starvation mode. How far under you are will indicate how much it drops, but it's definitely not a good thing if you're trying to lose weight and maintain muscle mass.

I didn't write anything about maintaining muscle mass. A lot of the time it's worth the "sacrifice" of losing some muscle during an aggressive cut if you're grossly overweight.

You WILL lose weight if you're under maintenance calories, period. There's nothing magical about it, in vs out.

If you want to maintain the majority of your muscle while cutting, then you have to be a bit more conservative.

Put an "average" 230lb man (who's overweight) on a 1500 calorie a day diet eating 150g of protein and with essentially ANY cardio and they will lose weight. They will lose strength and some muscle, but once they get to their desired weight within a month of eating they'll be back near whatever lift numbers they were at before the cut.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I didn't write anything about maintaining muscle mass. A lot of the time it's worth the "sacrifice" of losing some muscle during an aggressive cut if you're grossly overweight.

You WILL lose weight if you're under maintenance calories, period. There's nothing magical about it, in vs out.

If you want to maintain the majority of your muscle while cutting, then you have to be a bit more conservative.

Put an "average" 230lb man (who's overweight) on a 1500 calorie a day diet eating 150g of protein and with essentially ANY cardio and they will lose weight. They will lose strength and some muscle, but once they get to their desired weight within a month of eating they'll be back near whatever lift numbers they were at before the cut.

You're right, it is about in vs. out. However, if your in causes your out to change (metabolism), then you will not have net weight loss. I've seen several people try to cut too hard, but not so hard that they're going to lose weight no matter what. If you're 300-400 calories below your BMR, sometimes your BMR can drop to match it. It does happen.

 

[RbSX]

I am 200 pounds right now. 2400 or so is maintenance. on top of tht I lift weights and run on occasion. So realisticly, I am burning about 2900 on days that I exercise.

I probably go over 1500 on average. I know I have ~2000 calorie days 1-2 days a week.

But regardless, I am crious about effects on metabolism. Not worried about starvation mode as I am aware of that risk.

You have calculated your maintenance wrong then, as it includes your physical activity.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

2400 is my no exercise calorie burn.

Exercise adds more. I figure on an eaverage day I burn 2800 or so calories.

 

[RbSX]

2400 is my no exercise calorie burn.

Exercise adds more. I figure on an eaverage day I burn 2800 or so calories.

Then that's your BMR (in the post I quoted), your caloric is your BMR + cals burned incl. activities.

 

[tedrodai]

The semantics in the last few posts seem kinda confusing, at least to me. I think RbSX is tryin to say:

Maintenance is not necessarily the same as your no-exercise-calorie-burn. Maintenance is equal to your total burn for the day (BMR + all activity).

So on days you exercise, maintenance = 2800-2900 cal. On days you don't, maintenance = about 2400.

 

[Saint Nick]

Hey, sorry I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I do have a question related to this. I have been trying to put on some muscle for the past year and a half (only began lifting in January 2011).

I try to shoot for 2200 - 3000 calories per day as a bulking diet, but I feel like I'm not putting on any size. I split those calories into 30P/40C/30F. This is really throwing me for a loop, because my lifts are stalling out and I feel like I'm getting fatter. What gives? I am 6' 5" and weight about 175.

I never paid any attention to "meal timing" or any other fancy diets. I just try to hit my macros and calories each day. Sometimes I don't eat immediately after lifting and will wait about an hour because I'm just not hungry.

Currently these are my 5RMs:
Squat: 210
Bench: 105
Deadlift: 200
BB Row: 110

 

[RbSX]

The semantics in the last few posts seem kinda confusing, at least to me. I think RbSX is tryin to say:

Maintenance is not necessarily the same as your no-exercise-calorie-burn. Maintenance is equal to your total burn for the day (BMR + all activity).

So on days you exercise, maintenance = 2800-2900 cal. On days you don't, maintenance = about 2400.

No, your maintenance will stay the same even on non-exercise days as your body adjusts your metabolism to suit your overall activity level. While sure it might deviate slightly.. it wont' for the most part.

My point being the numbers he is using for his "cutting" aren't actually correct. In order to cut you generally want to be in the middle between your BMR and your maintenance, and he's probably coming in too low and cutting too hard.

 

[Doppel]

Sometimes I wonder if people arguing the risks of substantial calorie reductions have ever done them. I have, I'm on one now and losing fat like the world depends on it. There are also truly thousands of people who, at a gargantuan weight one day, woke up and said enough of this and went on what most would consider ludicrous calorie cuts, and they've cut fat down by 100+ lbs down to their goal.

When under a big deficit the body goes for fat first, that's what it's there for. Muscle is secondary. With resistance training the bulk of that muscle attack can be mitigated.

 

[Chrono]

24 hours. Keep your calories in check. Even if you ate 20 snacks of 100 calories every 1/2 hour and if 2000 was your maintenance, you wouldn't really lose or gain anything.

I have fasted and eaten in a one hour window. I think fasting and eating in a window actually works quite well since you can only eat so many calories within that sitting.

 

[Auric]

Science concludes eating every day shortens lifespan. Certain critical repairs only take place in the absence of food intake. So best to either fast for several consecutive days periodically or eat the bulk of calories every second day.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Science concludes eating every day shortens lifespan. Certain critical repairs only take place in the absence of food intake. So best to either fast for several consecutive days periodically or eat the bulk of calories every second day.

Yes, because what's ideal is always realistic.

I'd rather die early with a full belly than live longer and suffer from things like sarcopenia, osteopenia, lethargy, hunger pains, etc.

Also, I'm not sure where you get this evidence, but even studies studying daily caloric limitation show increases in lifespan. It doesn't have to be a fast - you just have to not eat very much.

 

[Auric]

It may well be more realistic/natural and even more convenient than frequently eating. So it is only a matter of overcoming the learned perception of deprivation (and "arbitrary" mealtimes).

Yes, overall restriction prolongs lifespan however that is seperate from the benefits of periodic restriction where total intake is not necessarily reduced (and therefore an already healthy weight can be maintained).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16529878
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lxyzc