Quote:
Originally Posted by PigtoBig  I enjoy it strictly because it makes me go and re-research stuff that I just accept as standard that I may have researched in the past. I knew you were baiting me for a discussion on the metabolic increase, and I did a quick google beforehand to make sure I wasn't going to look like a total jackace, and found a ton of sources (didn't check medical journals specifically though). Gimme a bit to go through and dig 'em up.
Also, on a subject like this, you know that there is going to be studies agreeing with both sides with seemingly irreproachable science behind both.
As far as empirical evidence goes, when I'm in specifically training for something, I go for around 6 meals a day, and I ALWAYS feel a difference. Maybe it's just a placebo, but I generally trust the way my body feels. Even if it is a placebo... people still can get better on sugar pills.
Gimme a bit to dredge up some articles... work is kinda nasty today, so it may take awhile... I'm not chickening out. |
Don't worry about it really man. If you are busy, it's fine. I've already done the research and know where it stands. You aren't going to pull anything out I haven't seen. I recently had a long discussion with Lyle McDonald on this very subject. If you don't know him, I suggest reading up on him..... brilliant man. Arguably one of the premier authors on
nutrition as well as an exercise scientist. The guy is a research hound and he's under the same impression as me.
Also, I'm not interested in articles. I'm interested in research. Pubmed and that kind of crap.
Yes, you could pull out studies refuting what I'm saying. However, that doesn't change my side of the story. I've worked with a lot of people and the difference between 3-6 meals in terms of physique-outcomes is non-existent in my experience.
If you've experienced different, measurable results.... I'd be interested. But with the combo of empirical and scientific evidence, I find it hard to understand.
I mean, basic physiology/biology..... eat a larger meal. It sits in the GI tract longer. Eat a smaller meal, you digest it faster. At the end of the day though, there's no real advantage.... total
calories and proper nutrient quality/quantity are going to give you the results.... not meal frequency.
Maybe, and this is a big maybe, physique competitors who are looking for crazy leanness for competition (think
bodybuilding) should adhere to this. Most do, in fact, but that's most due to 'brologic.' And who really cares in the context of this discussion considering these individuals are many standard deviations our on the bell curve.
For your average person looking to lose weight, there isn't going to be a difference one way or the other IMO and IME.
