Should I eat.. more?

[bals]

First off, eating three meals is a good idea if eaten like this:
Large breakfast, medium lunch, small dinner.
This has been proven, because you convert a large late meal to fat, instead of using it.

this is just not true. your metabolism works 24 hours a day. it doesn't matter when you eat a large meal.

[Shuya82]

Well kinda simple (maybe little silly) question
(answer might not be simple ;P)

I've been keeping "track of my calories" and have noticed that I eat maybe 900-1200 calories from the magical ~2000 daily (when losing weight (and I assume that I'm lacking other limits as well)).
I've been starting to walk for about 7-12 km's each day this week so I do burn some of it too. I mostly eat good food so its not bad fast food or anything at least.
But should I really eat more? I'm overweight so eating more than I have in past sounds just absurd..or is the "more but in smaller pieces" really that different?
>_>

Yes you should eat more, with the amount of walking you are doing your body will be starving with that amount of energy being supplied, just keep it healthy.

[NoRest4Wicked]

One thing I've learned to distinguish between is "when I'm hungry" vs "when I'm bored/sad and eating something would make me feel good". It's a very very very important distinction and IMO it's the reason many people are overweight. Yes, eat when you're hungry. But know when you're hungry, and when you're just craving pleasure.

Also, Intermittent Fasting is an amazing way of life that seems completely counter-intuitive at first, but when you look at the medical studies and research that back it up, it's quite compelling. It's personally helped me drop from 23% to 15% body fat over 3 months. It's hella hard at first, but it gets easier.

Anyway, that's my 2c.

Every time I see a site with dozens of before and after pictures, I think of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M957dACQyfU.

[HuyyNguyen]

The "eating more but in smaller pieces" quotes are very argumentative. Beginning Bodybuilders should not worry about this, worry about lowering your calorie intake. The 6 small meal portions deal with the higher athletes that must follow a strict diet to get the maximum Fat/ Metabolism ratio. You can still continue to do the 6 meals, but only eat it when you're hungry. I have a rule of thumb for losing fat/weight. What all I use to eat to MAINTAIN weight, I cut that into about 50-60% and spread that throughout the day so that my stomach won't be growling from hunger.

[Projali]

I give you the American public as evidence. We have been sold the reverse from restaurants here, where lunch is sold as a much smaller meal than after lunch where I tend to see meal sizes large enough for two, sold to one person. Also, why did you feel the need to single me out in this thread?

That's not evidence. You're assuming causation. It's quite a leap to say that restaurants sell larger dinner plates therefore the human body stores late night meals as fat.

Don't think of it as singling out. You began with a "it's been proven" statement without linking studies or any support to your claim. Pretty much everyone else in here who's made claims about meal size other than Radux has also neglected to include support.

[Deleted]

Well kinda simple (maybe little silly) question
(answer might not be simple ;P)

I've been keeping "track of my calories" and have noticed that I eat maybe 900-1200 calories from the magical ~2000 daily (when losing weight (and I assume that I'm lacking other limits as well)).
I've been starting to walk for about 7-12 km's each day this week so I do burn some of it too. I mostly eat good food so its not bad fast food or anything at least.
But should I really eat more? I'm overweight so eating more than I have in past sounds just absurd..or is the "more but in smaller pieces" really that different?
>_>

Eating in smaller pieces makes all the difference. You should try to eat 5 meals per day, at least: breakfast, mid-morning snack, lunch, mid-afternoon meal, and dinner.
Meaning you spread out those 1200 calories amongst those 5 meals. Breakfast should be your biggest meal.

You should also arrange time to eat those meals with time, so you can chew more times what you are eating. It makes for a happy digestion.
Why do you think oriental people like Chinese and Japanese are so slim? Because usually they eat their meals slowly, and the sensation of having a "full" stomach, comes quicker, hence they eat less.

It is normal for you to desire to eat a lot more, as your body tries to cover for what you have spent during exercises.
Your metabolism is a lot higher when you exercise frequently.
But don't forget... you can eat much more, but remember to eat healthy food.

[Borzo]

If you eat lots of carbs and starchy and sugary foods, you should eat less - but more often, yes. That'll keep your blood sugar stable and less likely to create spikes that lead to hunger pangs / cravings. That said, you shouldn't be eating refined carbs and sugars on their own though.

However, at the other end of the spectrum... eating 1-2 large meals per day is generally bad. Your body can't process and metabolize huge portions at once. It'll take on maybe HALF of your meal... and the other half automatically gets stored as fat since you ate so much it doesn't know what else to do with it.

Different people's metabolisms are different though... so keep that in mind.

Also, don't lose too much weight too fast. Your skin can only shrink so fast, and if you lose weight too fast, you'll be stuck with all the extra skin that will cost thousands of dollars to remove.

[Radux]

To people saying stuff about meal timing or frequency: It's irrelevant.

Peer Reviewed Academic Paper
Thermic Effect of Food
Intermittent Fasting

Please read them. It explains why it doesn't matter how many meals you have or at what time.

[Borzo]

To people saying stuff about meal timing or frequency: It's irrelevant.

Peer Reviewed Academic Paper
Thermic Effect of Food
Intermittent Fasting

Please read them. It explains why it doesn't matter how many meals you have or at what time.

It's not really irrelevant. Those studies are very well controlled... and most people are... not.

Meal timing does affect people's hunger levels, depending on the individual, and the type of foods they are eating. If you are timing your meals so that you are starving half the time, you are more likely to binge... which is what most people wanna avoid.

[Radux]

It's not really irrelevant. Those studies are very well controlled... and most people are... not.

Meal timing does affect people's hunger levels, depending on the individual, and the type of foods they are eating. If you are timing your meals so that you are starving half the time, you are more likely to binge... which is what most people wanna avoid.

Which is half the reason why I linked the first study. It showed that people eating 6 meals a day vs. 3 meals showed 0 difference for weight loss. If that's the case, then eating everything in 1 meal is fine if you want to do it that way. I'm not trying to say that you have to fast intermittently or you're bad.

I'm just saying that people who claim that anything less than 3 or 6 or whatever high number causes fat to be stored or eating your muscles or whatever you wanna say. It's crap.

If you want to eat 6 meals because it helps with hunger, fine. Just don't sell me your product about how it's the only way to lose weight. Same concept with eating right before bed or something.

You're right that the studies are controlled. That's the point. If they're not, that means the data isn't statistically relevant, nor could it be reliably reproduced. That's the wonder of science.

And yes, food type matters, too. People who have diets high in protein/fat will have longer periods of satiation compared to people who eat lots of carbs.

It's not an overly complicated thing, nor is there only 1 way to complete a journey. I only have a problem with people coming in stating their facts that are not backed by science at all but claim it as truth.

[Borzo]

Which is half the reason why I linked the first study. It showed that people eating 6 meals a day vs. 3 meals showed 0 difference for weight loss. If that's the case, then eating everything in 1 meal is fine if you want to do it that way. I'm not trying to say that you have to fast intermittently or you're bad.

I'm just saying that people who claim that anything less than 3 or 6 or whatever high number causes fat to be stored or eating your muscles or whatever you wanna say. It's crap.

If you want to eat 6 meals because it helps with hunger, fine. Just don't sell me your product about how it's the only way to lose weight. Same concept with eating right before bed or something.

You're right that the studies are controlled. That's the point. If they're not, that means the data isn't statistically relevant, nor could it be reliably reproduced. That's the wonder of science.

And yes, food type matters, too. People who have diets high in protein/fat will have longer periods of satiation compared to people who eat lots of carbs.

It's not an overly complicated thing, nor is there only 1 way to complete a journey. I only have a problem with people coming in stating their facts that are not backed by science at all but claim it as truth.

I think people advocate for whatever works for them. I mean, if it was as simple to lose weight as just eating 1200 calories a day, everyone would be thin. The problem is people know they eat to much, but they do it anyways. The problem is exclusively in people's minds. There doesn't need to be some magical "cure" to being fat. Just eat less. It's really simple when you put it like that. BUT that's not the problem many people have.... many people are hungry and can't control their cravings. That's the biggest issue.

Anything to make it easier for people to eat less is a good thing. And changing the timing of meals DOES work for some people. Eating more proteins and fats instead of refined carbs helps too. Eating in the mornings helps some, but has the opposite effect on others. Etc etc.

[Radux]

And I can totally get behind that. The problem is that there's a ton of bro science out there that people follow just because it worked for someone. It catches on and them BAM! "Do this for proper weight loss". Despite the fact that it has no scientific merit.

Like I said, I have no issue with people eating your typical 3 meals breakfast/lunch/dinner during a-typical times or even 6 meals (3 + snacks). If it helps lose weight or curbs hunger. Great. Anything to help success.

But it's the crap saying that your metabolism plummets and you turn to fat + cannibalize your muscles (starvation mode) because you don't eat 6 meals a day! That's bullshit.

[loki504]

Which is half the reason why I linked the first study. It showed that people eating 6 meals a day vs. 3 meals showed 0 difference for weight loss. If that's the case, then eating everything in 1 meal is fine if you want to do it that way. I'm not trying to say that you have to fast intermittently or you're bad.

I'm just saying that people who claim that anything less than 3 or 6 or whatever high number causes fat to be stored or eating your muscles or whatever you wanna say. It's crap.

If you want to eat 6 meals because it helps with hunger, fine. Just don't sell me your product about how it's the only way to lose weight. Same concept with eating right before bed or something.

You're right that the studies are controlled. That's the point. If they're not, that means the data isn't statistically relevant, nor could it be reliably reproduced. That's the wonder of science.

And yes, food type matters, too. People who have diets high in protein/fat will have longer periods of satiation compared to people who eat lots of carbs.

It's not an overly complicated thing, nor is there only 1 way to complete a journey. I only have a problem with people coming in stating their facts that are not backed by science at all but claim it as truth.

i'm new to the whole eating stuff. but is it not like almost everyother test they did? aka the whole Spinach re heating stuff?
i saw i don't know how many tests says it bad. but there also alot that say it doesn't matter. is it not the same with eating 1 meal or 6 meals?

[Radux]

Well, I suppose it depends on what the study is trying to prove.

A lot of bro-science out there will tell you that you need to eat 6 meals a day so your metabolism doesn't plummet. They use the analogy of constantly putting small pieces of wood on the fire to keep a nice consistent warmth or whatever, opposed to really big hot fire and low cold coals.

If, however, people would research the Thermic effect of food (one of the things I linked), it will show that your body will spend the same amount of energy to digest your food, whether it be from one meal, or 6.

I went ahead and linked the study about meal frequency just to show that I wasn't making it up or linking wikipedia stuff just because. Science has validated that concept.

That's one of the things with science, though. For every one test that can prove something, there's another one trying to dis-prove it. That's where research comes into play. Knowing the right things to look for as well as how the research was conducted can help people see through some of the potential lies.

I'm not trying to advocate that 6 meals a day is bad. I'm just saying that if you want to eat 3 instead, go for it. It won't make a difference for weight loss or your metabolism.

The idea is to get some people to understand that not everything/everyone in the fitness/nutrition industry is honest about everything. So much of it is "Buy my stuff! We have science!" Though their science may just be that: bro-science. People need to learn these things for themselves, so they can properly enrich their lives through their own knowledge/journey, opposed to having some guy on TV saying X is the best!