Does anybody follow a 1-meal a day diet? I have friends who only eat a large dinner everynight and are quite thin/fit. i also read somewhere about someone following this diet for years and not gaining an ounce..

I couldn't do it. 24 hours (or 23.5) between meals? My mouth likes food in it too much to do that.

imo, that's not a good idea. I think it is much better to eat more smaller meals throughout the day.

According to sumo wrestlers, this is the most optimal way to stay out of shape and being ignorant. Works if you want to get no where. Read around please.

Google for "intermittent fasting" if you want more information. I put it in the category of "if it works for you, more power to you," right along with 6 meals a day or 3 meals a day.

i have heard of really busy celebs doing this but im not sure that it would be the easiest thing to do! Everyone is different so i suppose you could try it for a few days and see if it suits you. I know for a fact that i couldnt do it!

1 meal a day is not a healthy diet...

1 meal a day is not a healthy diet...

By the number of meals per day you can label a diet healthy or not?

Interesting.... I always thought it would come down to things like adequate nutrients, energy, etc.

By the number of meals per day you can label a diet healthy or not?

Interesting.... I always thought it would come down to things like adequate nutrients, energy, etc.

It isn't healthy at all, and I wouldn't recommend it.

Without spewing blanket statements this time, how about explaining why. Facts aren't poison around here. :)

I'm not suggesting I agree with the one-meal per day mentality. I was simply saying I find it hard to believe one can label a diet healthy or not based solely on the frequency of feedings per day.

I bet I could make a diet consisting of one meal per day that is more healthy than most people's 3+ meals per day diet.

Starting to see my point?

How Frequency Of Meals May Affect Health

ScienceDaily (Mar. 11, 2008) — The health consequences of eating one large meal a day compared with eating three meals a day has not been established. Now two recently published journal articles are among the first to report the effects of meal skipping on key health outcomes, based on a study involving a group of normal-weight, middle-aged adults.
The study analyses were authored by scientists at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center in Beltsville, Md., and colleagues at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) Intramural Research Program in Baltimore, Md.
For the study, a small group of male and female volunteers participated in two eight-week meal-treatment periods. The study's crossover design meant that each volunteer completed both of the treatment diets, enabling them to serve as their own controls.
Volunteers were divided into one of two groups during each treatment period. They consumed either all of their required weight-maintenance calories in one meal a day or in three meals a day. ARS physiologists David Baer and William Rumpler and NIA neuroscientist Mark Mattson designed the study.

The first study analysis showed that consuming a one-meal-per-day diet, rather than a traditional three-meal-per-day diet, is feasible for a short duration. It showed that when the volunteers were "one-mealers," they had significant increases in total cholesterol, LDL "bad" cholesterol and in blood pressure, compared to when they were "three-mealers."
The changes in cardiovascular disease risk factors occurred despite the fact that the one- mealers saw slight decreases in their weight and fat mass in comparison to when they were three-mealers. Those findings were published in the April 2007 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Further analysis of the study group showed that when the volunteers were one-mealers, they had higher morning fasting blood sugar levels, higher and more sustained elevations in blood sugar concentrations, and a delayed response to the body's insulin, compared to when they were "three-mealers." Insulin is required to lower blood sugar levels. Those findings were published in the December 2007 issue of Metabolism.

--http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080307084626.htm

The One-Meal-A-Day Mistake

People who think they’ll lose weight eating only one meal a day are almost always disappointed. It rarely works out.

When a person eats only one meal a day, a few different things occur. First, even though they’re eating only one meal a day, they often snack during the day, sometimes without even realizing it. Walk by a bowl of chocolates and take a one. Pass a bag of chips and grab a few. A couple of chips here, a chocolate or two there, and it all starts to add up.

Another thing to consider is this… When you eat only one meal a day, you tend to eat more during that meal. Because of this, you’re really not restricting your calories as much as you think you are. Add that to the fact that your metabolism may actually slow down if you only eat once a day and you quickly begin to understand why the one-meal-a-day folks just can’t seem to take the weight off.

--http://www.dietingtipsetc.com/why_one_meal_a_day_wont_cut_it.html

Do you see my point?

"One meal a day". This is the "old slogan" to Feed a dog; this not a best choice to feed a dog, but this "plan" to a person...it's danger to your health and for emotional stability are very bad too.

And I assume you read these full papers?

Does anybody follow a 1-meal a day diet? I have friends who only eat a large dinner everynight and are quite thin/fit. i also read somewhere about someone following this diet for years and not gaining an ounce..

wow one meal a day, it's not healthy. My diet is that i eat 5 times a day, and i going to fitness 3 times a week and it's great im losing weight. that one meal day diet is defiantly wrong and unhealthy, any one who knows anything about body will tell you the same

I like this thread.

wow one meal a day, it's not healthy. My diet is that i eat 5 times a day, and i going to fitness 3 times a week and it's great im losing weight. that one meal day diet is defiantly wrong and unhealthy, any one who knows anything about body will tell you the same

If the person who's getting one meal a day is getting adequate nutrition -meaning their fat and protein intake are good - and their calories are appropriate for thier size -what makes that unhealthy?

What difference does it make if they get those calories in 6 meals or in one meal?

One thing that I don't understand is, does your body determine its needs on a 24 hr basis and then "reset" itself, or could it extend longer? Could someone load up on 2 days worth of food in 1-2 meal and not eat for 48 hrs and not catabolize? Take 3 multivitamins and not take any for the 3 days and with the same benefits?...... Im very interseted in what medical research has to say about this.

I suspect there haven't been any studies of regular intermittent fasting with periods of more than a day. A bunch of studies look at people who observe Ramadan, which is a pretty handy study population, but by definition they break the fast at sundown. Even the mouse studies are one day on, one day off.

Here's some great stuff from Aragon on IF:

An Objective Look at Intermittent Fasting - AlanAragon.com (http://www.alanaragon.com/an-objective-look-at-intermittent-fasting.html)

indeed a good read. I didn't know about the neuron-preserving affects of dieting/fasting. Here is what I like to highlight in this article though. "Fasted Resistance Training = Not Optimal". It shouldn't come as a surprise, but if your including resistance training in your weight loss plan, which you should, 1-meal a day is not a good idea.

P.S. I could not believe that one of the mentioned researchers in this article used BIA for body composition testing. Guessing someones body fat is more accurate than BIA IMO. They should know better, hahaha

Here is what I like to highlight in this article though. "Fasted Resistance Training = Not Optimal". It shouldn't come as a surprise, but if your including resistance training in your weight loss plan, which you should, 1-meal a day is not a good idea.

If you read the actual paragraphs under that heading, I'm not sure you've reached the appropriate conclusion. I came away with the conclusion of "eat within a few hours before you lift weights, regardless of how frequently you eat." So someone who eats 6 times a day, but does their resistance work in the morning before breakfast, or who eats 3 times a day, and does their resistance work immediately before a meal, would get the same negative effects as someone who ate once a day and lifted before eating.

Correct Ally.

I see what your saying. I guess If your doing the 1-meal a day plan, then you should atleast corrolate meal timing with your workouts. But I just can't forgo my post-workout meal, even if this particular article emphasizes pre-workout over post workout meal.

I always hold pre in higher ground than post. That's me though.

Researchers Look at How Frequency of Meals May Affect Health
By Rosalie Marion Bliss
February 15, 2008
The health consequences of eating one large meal a day compared with eating three meals a day has not been established. Now two recently published journal articles are among the first to report the effects of meal skipping on key health outcomes, based on a study involving a group of normal-weight, middle-aged adults.

The study analyses were authored by scientists at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center in Beltsville, Md., and colleagues at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) Intramural Research Program in Baltimore, Md.

For the study, a small group of male and female volunteers participated in two eight-week meal-treatment periods. The study's crossover design meant that each volunteer completed both of the treatment diets, enabling them to serve as their own controls.

Volunteers were divided into one of two groups during each treatment period. They consumed either all of their required weight-maintenance calories in one meal a day or in three meals a day. ARS physiologists David Baer and William Rumpler and NIA neuroscientist Mark Mattson designed the study.

The first study analysis showed that consuming a one-meal-per-day diet, rather than a traditional three-meal-per-day diet, is feasible for a short duration. It showed that when the volunteers were "one-mealers," they had significant increases in total cholesterol, LDL "bad" cholesterol and in blood pressure, compared to when they were "three-mealers."

The changes in cardiovascular disease risk factors occurred despite the fact that the one- mealers saw slight decreases in their weight and fat mass in comparison to when they were three-mealers. Those findings were published in the April 2007 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Further analysis of the study group showed that when the volunteers were one-mealers, they had higher morning fasting blood sugar levels, higher and more sustained elevations in blood sugar concentrations, and a delayed response to the body's insulin, compared to when they were "three-mealers." Insulin is required to lower blood sugar levels. Those findings were published in the December 2007 issue of Metabolism.

ARS is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief scientific research agency.

Researchers Look at How Frequency of Meals May Affect Health / February 15, 2008 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service (http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2008/080215.htm)

We have a digest system, I think we must take care about...

I always hold pre in higher ground than post. That's me though.

I do both diligently :D

If you're meeting all your nutritional needs and maintaining a caloric deficit it'd be fine and you'd lose weight. I wouldn't be able to do it for very long though.

1 meal a day is a bad idea if you want to lose weight. When you wake up your body needs food to start your metabolism working. Hence breakfast really IS the most important meal of the day. To keep your metabolism working optimally you should eat two other meals and small snacks every 2-3 hours. This helps keep the metabolism from slowing down or getting into starvation mode where it tends to store EVERY calorie you ate because it doesn't know when it will get the next energy boost.

Absolutely wrong.

Does anybody follow a 1-meal a day diet? I have friends who only eat a large dinner everynight and are quite thin/fit. i also read somewhere about someone following this diet for years and not gaining an ounce..

I suppose if you can get by with eating just one meal a day it may work for you... But I think most people with weight issues couldn't do that. And I've read many places it's actually quite bad for you to do that. I think it's better to eat 5 small meals than 1 huge one.

I'm a bit slow with this. Just one complete meal a day, and absolutely no other food? Or does it have snacks in between?

You asked, "Why am I wrong?"

1 meal a day is a bad idea if you want to lose weight.

Why?

When you wake up your body needs food to start your metabolism working.

No it doesn't.

Your metabolism is always 'on.'

To keep your metabolism working optimally you should eat two other meals and small snacks every 2-3 hours. This helps keep the metabolism from slowing down

Meal frequency or number of meals doesn't seem to have any significant impact on metabolic rate. This is backed by a ton of empirical as well as scientific evidence.

or getting into starvation mode where it tends to store EVERY calorie you ate because it doesn't know when it will get the next energy boost.

That is NOT how the "starvation mode" works. Use the search function and search for threads under the username "steve" and keywords "starvation response."

Ok, let me clarify as apparently I was not very clear in my previous posting. I understand that our metabolism is always working. If it didn't work at all we would die. I was apparently over simplifying what I meant. Essentially, if we don't start our day with something to eat, our body doesn't typically have the resources it needs to break down the needed fuel that keeps our motors running - glucose. Your brain and your nervous system need glucose to work: that means walking, speaking, stretching, typing - any activity requires this fuel.

I don't think you understand the body as well as you think you do. I mean no offense by that but I've functioned fantastically without dietary glucose. Gluconeogenesis is a wonderful thing as well as ketones.

I suggest you take a look at what's going on with things like Intermittent Fasting and the like.

I'm not suggesting people should not eat breakfast, I'm not suggesting people should do low carb, and I'm not suggesting people should do fasting.

I'm simply making the point that your absolute statements don't make much sense in the realm of human biology and physiology, is all.

Yes, if you don't eat your body will attempt to get the needed energy from burning excess fat or muscle in your body. However, this also taxes your body in a variety of ways that are simply not wise.

But nobody is suggesting you "not eat."

That's not what this is about. We're talking about a limited number of meals per day.

Big difference.

As for the starvation vs. starvation mode - this too I understand are two seperate things.. one is the act of depriving the body of calories - typically to less than 50% of the needed calories... whereas the starvation mode refers to the bodies response to the lower calories. While it may initially seem helpful because you are indeed burning up fat to lose weight... you will eventually reach a point where your body can't function properly.

You don't understand the starvation response though. That's my original point. The metabolic and hormonal adaptations associated with the starvation response happen regardless of the size of the energetic deficit. Any hypocaloric diet will trigger the adaptations with time. These adaptations are more associated with body mass than anything else, too.

Why do you think people with hyper/hypothyroidism have problems? Their sugars get out of whack and they get a wide variety of symptoms - which can potentially lead to death.

Absolutes are a terrible thing in the face of this field.

Maintaining a healthy well balanced diet (not allowing your body get into starvation mode) is the best course for healthy long term success at weight loss

This is funny.

For someone not on a diet the recomeded daily allowance should apply in the 3 meal times as Breakfast, Dinner & an Afternoon meal.

For someone on a diet they key to success is eating smaller ammounts of food more regular so that your metabolism is kept more active and which burns more calories that your body takes in fat.

Someone who eats one meal a day in the afternoon will most likely put the calories from this as fat. As the body is in a slowdown process towards the night. Yes there are some people that can get away with this but not all of us. Hence the reason you arer supposed to have a good breakfast is that body uses this for energy and can easily burn this off through the day.

To the person above, you are not stupid, and you shouldnt keep things to yourself.

IMO, I think weight loss is really about finding something that works for you. Its a life style after all, we dont all have the same lives. There are some general guidelines that we should follow, seeing how we are all human and all, but I think trying to make everything super optimal could lead to failure. Having several meals a day probably has a slight metabolic advantage, but hey if it doesn't work you in your way of life then don't do it. carb deprivation might not work for you, but if it does then by all means do it. I'm a big believer in weight lifting while lossing weight, but i've seen some people who never lifted while they lost weight, and they have a great body now, so even that I can't say is carved in stone.

Ok you know what Steve.. this will be my last posting on this thread.. because you are absolutely right. I DON'T know as much about the body as I should. If I did.... I wouldn't be fat now would I.

Thank you for reminding me why dieting is a private thing that people don't/ shouldn't talk to other people about. Because any time I seem to talk to people about dieting they tell me things that contradict what my dr. has told me and what I have experienced as helpful... I will stick to talking to my dr. about the things I need to know ... and I will figure out this whole thing on my own.

Ah, this forum has some action going on! whoo hoo

Hey Lot, don't feel intimidated on the forum, you will always find someone that doesn't agree with you. just let it roll off your back. Don't let it stop you from saying what you want.

Your doctor seems to be giving you the textbook advice for how to lose weight and live a healthier life. It's not like you are saying something unheard of or outlandish. If it is working for you, stick with it. No one can argue with results!!

My doctor told me that if everyone listened and followed what she tells them, that she would be out of a job.

1 meal a day is a bad idea if you want to lose weight. When you wake up your body needs food to start your metabolism working. Hence breakfast really IS the most important meal of the day. To keep your metabolism working optimally you should eat two other meals and small snacks every 2-3 hours. This helps keep the metabolism from slowing down or getting into starvation mode where it tends to store EVERY calorie you ate because it doesn't know when it will get the next energy boost.You do know by eating less calories than you use in a day, regardless of the number of meals, your body "goes into starvation mode" and burns fat, right?

...nevermind. I guess he/she is gone.

For the record, I could never eat 1 meal a day. I like food almost as much as I like variety. One meal... no thanks.

Ok you know what Steve.. this will be my last posting on this thread.. because you are absolutely right. I DON'T know as much about the body as I should. If I did.... I wouldn't be fat now would I. I am apparently so stupid when it comes to having a healthy body and healthy eating habits that I believe my diet consultant when they tell me that going into ketosis is a bad things for me.... That I should eat multiple small meals every day because it keeps my metabolism working more efficiently than when I was eating one meal per day (which for the record - that is how I got fat to begin with - because I would eat too much food only one time per day because it was the only time I ate)... I will admit that I do not have a doctorate degree in nutrition or physical health - and I don't know a ton of huge words to describe the complex things that the body does in response to different things - all I know is what my diet consultant has told me... what my doctor has recommended... and what has worked for me. Apparently this is information I should just keep to myself. I mean .. heck I read one of your other posts in which you mentioned that you hate the idea of "programs' because no one program can work for everyone - and I wouldn't want to appear as though I am forcing my plan onto everyone.

Thank you for reminding me why dieting is a private thing that people don't/ shouldn't talk to other people about. Because any time I seem to talk to people about dieting they tell me things that contradict what my dr. has told me and what I have experienced as helpful... I will stick to talking to my dr. about the things I need to know ... and I will figure out this whole thing on my own.

Wow.

That's about all I can say to that post.

Appeals to emotion are so funny b/c it only makes things look worse. It doesn't hide the facts though from anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.

I'm sure you won't read this though since you aren't going to be participating in this thread again.

Well, my blood sugar would fall to the ground if I did that. So I wouldn't suggest it.

My aunt is morbidly obese and is pre-diabetic (or boderline, can't remember the term). Her doctor said that one of the reasons was the fact that she only ate one big meal at dinner. Of course, I'm sure her meal wasn't the most healthy thing, but he did emphasize that it was a one-meal issue. Probably it's worse for people who are struggling with their blood sugar levels than the rest of the population.

I could never just eat one meal. I could probably get by with 2 and have on occasion when I've been really busy, but I prefer 3 or 4.

For the record, nobody is suggesting you eat one meal per day here. At least that's not what I'm doing. For anyone who follows my advice it's pretty much always to eat as many meals as you can comfortably fit into your day.

I'm simply playing devil's advocate to those who refuse to look at the facts and love to sling absolutes.

Great thread!

Steve,

I completely agree, you don't need to eat many meals a day to lose weight.

That being said, eating smaller meals throughout the day can help psychologically and also physically (by keeping hunger down, and blood sugar levels more stable.)

But you're right, the science does say that you can eat 1 meal a day, or 10, it does not matter as long as your energy (calories/macronutrients) are at the right level for you.

Here's a study that I usually cite when this argument comes up:

Meal frequency and energy balance. [Br J Nutr. 1997] - PubMed Result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494)

Here's a quote from the abstract:

Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.

Great thread!

Steve,

I completely agree, you don't need to eat many meals a day to lose weight.

That being said, eating smaller meals throughout the day can help psychologically and also physically (by keeping hunger down, and blood sugar levels more stable.)

Sometimes.

Not always.

I've come across plenty of people who feel less satiated on more frequent feedings. My point is there is no right or wrong.

Check out what people are doing with intermittent fasting.

But you're right, the science does say that you can eat 1 meal a day, or 10, it does not matter as long as your energy (calories/macronutrients) are at the right level for you.

Here's a study that I usually cite when this argument comes up:

Meal frequency and energy balance. [Br J Nutr. 1997] - PubMed Result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494)

Here's a quote from the abstract:

I've shown a bunch of studies on this forum about this, just do a search.

Steve,

I agree, when it really comes down to it, it's personal preference.

And that's good news, because, as you stated, you can eat 1 meal, or 10 a day.

You do need to make sure to keep your energy correct though.

And I'm sure you've given out lots of great advice here on this forum, I was just contributing my 2cents on the study above.

Happy Wednesday!
-Sean