May 25th, 2008, 04:24 AM
May 25th, 2008, 06:46 AM
I couldn't do it. 24 hours (or 23.5) between meals? My mouth likes food in it too much to do that.
May 25th, 2008, 10:25 AM
imo, that's not a good idea. I think it is much better to eat more smaller meals throughout the day.
May 25th, 2008, 10:57 AM
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.
May 26th, 2008, 12:50 AM
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.
May 26th, 2008, 01:02 AM
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!
May 26th, 2008, 06:13 PM
1 meal a day is not a healthy diet...
May 26th, 2008, 06:26 PM
By the number of meals per day you can label a diet healthy or not?
Originally Posted by jpiers
Interesting.... I always thought it would come down to things like adequate nutrients, energy, etc.
May 26th, 2008, 08:34 PM
It isn't healthy at all, and I wouldn't recommend it.
Originally Posted by Steve
May 26th, 2008, 08:57 PM
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?
May 27th, 2008, 01:45 AM
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.
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.
Do you see my point?
Last edited by missy08; May 27th, 2008 at 01:50 AM.
May 27th, 2008, 02:09 AM
"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.
May 27th, 2008, 02:47 AM
And I assume you read these full papers?
May 27th, 2008, 09:50 PM
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
Originally Posted by kati1790
May 27th, 2008, 09:53 PM
By wishes in forum On Topic
Last Post: March 24th, 2009, 01:01 AM
By shae in forum Nutrition
Last Post: July 20th, 2008, 09:53 PM
By SuzAtHome in forum On Topic
Last Post: June 23rd, 2008, 02:21 PM
By miracle in forum On Topic
Last Post: June 24th, 2007, 11:50 PM
By t3hw1nn4r in forum Nutrition
Last Post: September 29th, 2006, 01:08 AM
Top Poster: maleficent