Quote:
Originally Posted by SDPT  Steve,
I'd be interested in your source to say that the statements I've made are false. |
Sure.
Quote:
|
I have a Master's Degree in Exercise Science and I am a licensed nutritionist and I am only stating things that have been shown with clear research.
|
Great. I've met a lot of ignorant people wearing those same hats. They get hung up on the idea they know everything when this field is so yound and evolving.
If they don't stay current on the research, they don't know squat.
I'm not suggesting this to be the case here, as I know nothing about you. But since you're claiming such expertise, and you're the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you. I'd love to see your research used.
Quote:
|
If you know of research that says otherwise from a credible source I would be interested to see this.
|
With regards to your exercise efficiency statements here:
Quote:
|
I looked over this thread and it looks like pretty exactly the same thing I recommended. If you are noticing a stall in your exercise program it probably means that your body is becoming more efficient and you will not burn the same amount of calories that you use to on the same exercise routine and it needs to be changed alittle.
|
and
Quote:
|
The human body can adapt to stress put on it (exercise). You will obviously get better at what you have been doing and your body will learn to burn less calories for the same amount of work.....
|
Check this study. Since you're expert, I'm sure you pay for access to the various databases.
Has Armstrong's cycle efficiency improved? [J Appl Physiol. 2005] - PubMed Result
Now apply that to the context discussed in the article I linked for you earlier found here:
Exercise Efficiency | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
Lyle McDonald is better researched than any nutritionist (even dietitian) I've come across. I'd be more than happy if you proved me wrong though, or better yet him wrong, b/c than I'd be honored and lucky to have you at my disposal.
Or, on the flip side, maybe you'll learn something new.
Either way it's a win win.
With regards to your statements here:
Quote:
|
Also, skipping meals and then eating dinner until you are full is a huge problem. You body cannot process more than approx 700 calories at a time(this number will depend on the person.) so anything more than that will be stored as fat even if you have not had eaten a lot the rest of the day.
|
I'm quite surprised by these words to be honest now that you explain you have a masters in the subject.
I would have thought you'd understand the importance of net energetic state.
Eating nothing but one meal per day obviously isn't optimal. But if you're in a net caloric deficit for the day, you're not going to be storing
fat over time.
I urge you to read these links who are written and backed by very knowledgable authors/researchers:
Meal Frequency and Energy Balance | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald An Objective Look at Intermittent Fasting - AlanAragon.com - Fitness Based on Science & Experience http://user210805.websitewizard.com/...R-Jan-2008.pdf (see page 6 and 7)
After reading that and presenting me with your data, I'd be happy to discuss any questions or comments you might have. I'm actually very interested in hearing what you have to say with regards to Lyle's and Aran's articles and research reviews.
I'll get Alan over here if you're interested. He gives lectures to the FDA and Commission on Dietetic Registration.
Quote:
Motherof2,
If you are eating 900 calories at dinner and only 500 for the rest of the day you might have some problems.
|
What sort of problems?
Quote:
|
If you are not over weight and are happy with where you are then you might be on the high end with your metabolism and you might be about to get away with this.
|
What do you mean by "the high end of your metabolism"?
Quote:
|
If you are trying to lose weight and this isn't working it would be the first thing I would recommend you change. You body works much better with a constant supply of energy to keep your metabolism elevated.
|
I would not agree with this given the links I provided you above and the experience I've had working with a good number of people relative to
weight loss.
Meal frequency really is of little importance relative to
fat loss assuming net
calories and macros are in line.
Not if net caloric balance is negative.
If your
body requires 1800
calories per day for maintenance for example, and you eat 1 meal per day that is 1200
calories, the net outcome is
fat loss.
