Personally, I have been successful eyeballing my calorie and nutrition content in a 24 hour period, and making the best adjustments (in meal frequency) that my life environment allows, with the end goal leaving a calorie deficit when the objective was fat loss.
Some people live very busy lives, and when they start studying how to lose weight, one of the things that is in the forefront is multiple meals per day. Some will be so in tune (or obsessed and/or overly concerned with, if you will) with "multiple meals" that they think that if they do not get their multiple meals per day, it will some how throw their fat loss off track, even if they are in their personally calculated deficit--when its simply not the case.
If multiple meals are suddenly removed (due to life experience), a healthy persons fat loss isn't going to magically crumble and fall to pieces---as if fat loss "hinges" on frequency meals (and the calories in the meal) per day.
Fat loss DOES NOT hinge upon or depend upon nor require multiple meals per day.And, it is as simple as that.
I am not going to get all stressed out, if I can't eat multiple times. Because if life throws me a wrench in the fire, all I have to do (with the time I have to eat) is create a calorie deficit (and if appropriate, manipulate a nutrient)--at the end of the 24 hour day, and this is all that is friggggggggen required.
Multiple meals are NOT required, but some sort of deficit is, in a personal "trend", and in a 24 hour period.
There has been many questions about this very thing on the forum. And, for a "healthy person", to even suggest that eating one large meal (say over 1,600c, and maintaining 24 hour calorie deficit) versus spreading this same calorie amount over say 6 meals, will some how make fat loss dysfunctional--is a bunch of crap. I am not suggesting to eat 1600c, this was just used as an example.
Is this optimal? Of course not (in terms of dealing with strengths and weaknesses). I am speaking "only" in terms of fat loss (nothing else added in).
It isn't going to matter (assuming a healthy person), if the calories consumed in a 24 hour period came in the form of 10 meals or from one meal, if their is a deficit (especially at the beginning of a weight loss) one is going to lose tissue.
I personally experimented with this frequency of meals, and speaking for myself, in the last two years, I learned one thing about my body "during the bulk of my tissue loss":
It doesn't matter how much I eat as long as I am in a deficit in a 24 hour period (when fat accumulation is high), I will lose weight, and lose it easily. It simply did not matter whether I ate one meal or 20 as long as a deficit was induced in a 24 hour period.
I can sit down and eat 1200 calories in one sitting, and have one other meal (say 600 calories), and if my MT line is calculated at 2400, I will lose weight. Anyone who has read my posts on what I did to lose fat tissue, should know I used multiple meals, calorie shifting, and other manipulations during my goal path. However, there were times my environment changed and prevented "normal" functioning, and I had to revert to logic and "BASIC MECHANICS" to get me through, and multiple meals just weren't an option. So, if one benefit in the equation is removed, you pull from education to maintain your goal path.
I didn’t store any fat eating large meals in one sitting, because my "trend" was a history of calorie deficits. Therefore, the theory of eating large meals in one sitting and it getting stored (at least with me) is full of garbage. Bah! Working with deficits is the answer and doing your best with what life throws your way.
I have lost weight when life has thrown a few curve balls and I could only get a couple of meals per day. Out of curiosity, there were times I purposely at large meals (and dealt with the hunger pains, that multiple meals can reduce), for entire month, and then compared results to the previous month (in fat loss terms), and the results were nearly the same.
Multiple meals are "over rated" in the sense of fat loss, not in the sense of the benefits one could bring through education by "appropriate manipulations" toward one's goal. In other words, fat loss can continue when you don’t have multiple meals, and fat loss (and other benefits) can be "tweaked" through correct nutrient manipulations within multiple meals, but it doesn’t just "fall apart" if multiple meals are missing from the equation, IMO.
We live in an imperfect world, and eating frequent meals just cannot happen sometimes…….and one NEEDS TO KNOW that if they cannot eat frequent meals……there goal isn't going to mysteriously fall apart.
I have eaten carbs before bed (as much as 60 grams) without a problem during the bulk of my weight loss. I understand some can be carb sensitive, and may not work for everyone. However, speaking for me, I could eat carbs before bed (and do basically nothing but burn "sleeping calories" for the next 8 hours). Carbs can sometimes get a bad rap and can be misunderstood, I agree. Carbs can play a major role (positively) in one weight training and dieting to lose fat tissue. Additionally, they can play a powerful role when "manipulated".
I have eaten fructose (from fruits) before bed during the bulk of my weight loss without any problem. And, fructose gets a bad rap as well, sometimes.
It wasn't until I got to the point where my BF was low, and my body seemed to like its current weight, that it started to fight my efforts for additional fat loss--then this became a different story altogether. Not in meal frequency (necessarily)…but more in the nutrient and calorie manipulation sense of the equation.
When I was at home in so called normal mode, I would calorie shift (meaning calories deficits and MT Line were NEVER the same), eat frequently, and even have pre and post workout meals.
However…….there were times this sequence had to be broken with life's responsibilities--and sometimes for long periods.
I didn’t fret, I knew how my body responded and likewise would apply education to my circumstances the "best I could". If I couldn't train, nor have frequent meals, then I kept the very thing that would keep me on my goal path: the diet.
"I kept running deficits regardless of the frequent of meals or the calorie content of those meals", because THIS is the bottom trend line when all the smoke clears and all the blah, blah, blah, ends.
And, this has proven to work.
While I know multiple meals have their benefits, I also know it isn't "the glue" that keeps fat loss smoken' along the track.
I remember when I was in Atlanta last year, and due to the scheduling of the seminar, I was only getting two meals per day, and the seminar was for 6 days. I had to improvise my training and diet plan by adjusting it to my environment and the hotel facility's training room (and what they had available to use). I had to get my calories and nutrition in and maintain my deficit.
What was I going to think? "Oh, boy, I am f@cked now, if I eat 1900 calories in two meals, I am eating too much in one sitting, and most it will be stored in the face of a deficit in 24 hours?"
No, I wasn’t, because this is a bunch of bull-sh@t.
First, I new that this week was going to be a full course "shift" from the norm from what my body was "used to" which is a good thing), second, I knew the 8 to 10 hours without food (as I wasn’t eating the "crap snacks" they put out no matter how hungry I got), I was burning calories, and third, I knew I was running a deficit in carbs and calories even before eating the second large meal (post AM breakfast). How does this work, lets see.
I eat 900c in the am for breakfast, knowing I would get another chance to eat in the evening. This is only TWO MEALS.
I am "sitting" in the seminar for 8 to 10 hours. And, its approximated that a person my age and height can burn "about" 120 calories per hour sitting at a PC, and since this activity is close in "comparison" I used this to calculate how many calories I would burn, and this is approximately 960 calories at 8 hours (and 1200 for 10 hours). UH! The 900c in the am doesn’t look so darn large, now does it. When In fact I would have probably already eaten 900c or more prior to 6PM in multiple meals if I was at home. I consumed the same, but instead of multiple meals its in one meal.
I then eat another meal at 900c, at about 6PM. I allow a digestion period of 2 hours. I then train for an hour and 15 minutes (cardio, and a modified training routine with what is available to use at the hotel). It is now 9:15 PM in the evening. I then go to bed at 10PM, and then wake up at 6pm (about 8 hours calorie burning sleep, post workout).
Do the math. Two meals, a deficit, and still on track with what life presented me. Meal frequency is over rated. Eating too much in one sitting "can be" "over stated" as a negative. I am NOT dismissing the obvious benefits of meal frequency (do I really need to go into this?), but its not the GLUE that make all things work, but applying education to the environment your in, is.
Best wishes,
Chillen
