I was talking to my friend the other day who is a nutritionist (some of you may already be doing this) but she said a good rule of thumb when planning your eating is to think of this plan. I have been having trouble with energy during the day and not sleeping well at night:
Breakfast- Eat like a king
Lunch- Eat like a prince
Dinner- Eat like a pauper
Basically she said that many people eat their biggest meal at night, which if not done way before bedtime can prove hard to lose weight, but also can lead to snacking after the meal. She said Breakfast should be a good, big, healthy meal, to get you up and give you plenty of energy for the day, you also have a chance to burn it up. Lunch should be smaller and it is to give you a little boost and keep your metabolism up. Then dinner should be smaller and just enough to keep the metabolism going to get you sleep and to breakast in the am. You will sleep better if your stomach is not so full at night and the food doesn't have time to sit there.
I just thought that was an interesting thing to share.
My biggest meal is always dinner I read a study that showed that total calories per day was more significant then when calories were consumed per day. In any case, my big dinners at 8:00 never seemed to affect my 70+ weight loss or my 2 year maintenance (I also never had to deal with "after dinner raid the pantry snack attacks"). If small dinners work for you, go for it!
Most often my biggest meal is dinner. Although when my scheduele permits I prefer to have my lunch as the biggest meal. I wish I could do it more often. I like to have a light breakfast. So this scenario would not work well for me at all. But of course we are all different. I also used to hold by the nothing after dinner rule and no food after 7 or 8 pm. I threw that out the window as well. I usually workout in the evenings now and I look forward to a very lite snack afterwards. It hasn't slowed down my weightloss one iota. So, I'm another one who believes that how many calories consumed are waaay more important then when.
My biggest meal is usually lunch or dinner. I don't care to have a big breakfast. Although I do snack throughout the day and my snacking is mostly around the day hours.
The only reason I can think of not to eat too large a meal close to bedtime is if you suffer from heartburn or acid reflux. I do notice some acid reflux if I eat and go to bed with about 2 hours, esp if I have a "heavier" meal - especially one with a tomato based (or other acidic) component.
I've read both theories, and the way my life works out, I usually end up with a larger dinner. Now people who don't eat much all day may be more apt to overeat at dinner, and thus consume more calories than they need - a whole different issue.
Count me as another that has had success without following the big breakfast/medium lunch/small dinner plan. My dinners and lunches are the same size, my breakfast is considerably smaller, and i snack regularly. I've had no weight loss stalls as a result of this, and it just works better for me scheduling-wise.
My biggest meal is dinner also. i cannot eat a large breakfast oatmeal does me and sometimes I have a banana also. I have had no real problems with weight loss unless i snack on evil things at night. lol
My husband tried to get me to do this 15 years ago and I laughed at him because I was raised eating a light breakfast and lunch and then a heavy meal for supper. Guess he wasn't off his rocker after all!
I'm sold that weight management is calories in vs calories out. Period. From a weight loss (not health) perspective it really doesn't matter what calories you eat or when you eat them.
Having said that, I also believe that there are different strategies that help some people manage calories. For example, 200 calories of salad and 200 calories of deep dish pizza will have the same impact on your weight. The difference is that you get a whole lot more salad for the calories that you would pizza, and you'll stay full longer and more likely to be satisfied with those 200 salad calories. Well, usually!
Anyway, I also believe that when you eat your calories may help you manage how many you take in and keep you satisfied. An extreme example would be eating all your daily calories in one meal--you'd feel bloated and miserable and then starving by the next day. Not a great way to diet successfully! So we tend to push our calories to 3 meals and a snack or two, with the evening meal being the heaviest. If that doesn't work for you try spreading those calories around a different way. Some people want 5-6 small meals a day to spread it out more. I've talked to some people who swear by the huge morning meal.
Personally, I like my 3 squares, all about equally caloric, plus about 3 small snacks (yes, I'm a hobbit) midmorning, midafternoon, and right before bed. I also feel sort of sick having any significant amount of fat or protein for breakfast, so it is a pretty carb-rich meal, preferably whole grain or bran cereal or oatmeal, fruit, and coffee. Dinner tends to be heavy on lean proteins and veggies with a moderate amount of starch, and lunch is pretty balanced--no real nutritional reason for me on that, it just feels better when I eat that way. Once in a while I'll eat a big breakfast or a big dinner and I usually feel sort of sick.
I agree with wndranne--I think the prince/pauper mentality can help some people to manage the amount of food they eat, but I don't see any physical/medical reason to eat as such. Like others have said, WHEN you eat your calories doesn't really matter nearly as much as how many calories you eat. This may be a helpful schedule of eating for people who have difficulties with excessive evening snacking (this is also the reason some plans suggest not eating after a certain specific time in the evening--it's to control the number of calories you eat so you're not "grazing" all night).
I have been told the reason for this concept (king/prince/pauper) is because your body doesn't burn as many calories when sleeping as when awake and moving around and thus the reason to not consume so many before going to sleep. I'm not saying that is what I am advocating here, this is just the reason I have heard behind this concept. I think, like many others here, that calories in versus out is the key, but I do limit myself to not eat within three hours before going to bed. Guess it is all in what works for the individual.
I have been told the reason for this concept (king/prince/pauper) is because your body doesn't burn as many calories when sleeping as when awake and moving around and thus the reason to not consume so many before going to sleep.
This used to be a generally accepted school of thought but has more recently been proven to be false. Just because you don't burn those calories within X hours of consuming them doesn't mean you can't burn them earlier in the day or the next day, etc. You don't have a limited amount of time from the time you eat something to burn it--if that were true, we'd all have no hope in burning away the stored fat we already have
(Ritzy, i know you said you don't necessarily agree/advocate this concept, so this is not meant as a personal response to you, but rather as a response to the concept in general )
I think it "makes sense" as diet advice, if you are extremely active. I know my dad ate this way most of his life, but it made the most sense, when he was a farm kid, and even when we drove a bread delivery truck, because he had to work hard, and needed the fuel to keep going. Once he retired, he started putting on weight, because he was still eating like a much more active man.
For me, smaller more frequent meals/snacks and journaling work best. I have to monitor how much I'm eating overall, because hobbit eating can turn into non-stop grazing if I'm not aware. It is difficult, because I sometimes feel like I am "missing" the larger meal, and never getting "full." For me, though, that is the point. I'm trying to both shrink my stomache size so I am satisfied with less food, and in general prevent the highs and lows of hunger and blood sugar that make me go a little "nuts" when it comes to food.
This used to be a generally accepted school of thought but has more recently been proven to be false. Just because you don't burn those calories within X hours of consuming them doesn't mean you can't burn them earlier in the day or the next day, etc. You don't have a limited amount of time from the time you eat something to burn it--if that were true, we'd all have no hope in burning away the stored fat we already have
(Ritzy, i know you said you don't necessarily agree/advocate this concept, so this is not meant as a personal response to you, but rather as a response to the concept in general )
Just to add a little bit to this concept. Many, many people like to exercise first thing in the morning - before even eating a single crumb. What they are burning at this point is stored fat.
Good rule of thumb
I read a study that showed that total calories per day was more significant then when calories were consumed per day. In any case, my big dinners at 8:00 never seemed to affect my 70+ weight loss or my 2 year maintenance (I also never had to deal with "after dinner raid the pantry snack attacks"). If small dinners work for you, go for it!
