Interesting, you can't click on the link I provided?

I was unaware of that.

The article I posted explained why this is false.

This, too, is false.

that a relief since i have a hard time fitting most of my calories outside of dinner time and a 800-900 calorie dinner is sometimes the only thing keeping my calories over 1400 :S

Steve,


I'd be interested in your source to say that the statements I've made are false. 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. If you know of research that says otherwise from a credible source I would be interested to see this.

Motherof2,

If you are eating 900 calories at dinner and only 500 for the rest of the day you might have some problems. 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. 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. When you get all or most of your calories in one meal your body will store most of the calories as fat.

I suppose next your going to tell her that muscle burns at least 50 more calories a day than fat.

Meal frequency and energy balance.

[Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time f...[Ann Nutr Metab. 1987] - PubMed Result

Effects of meal frequency on energy utilization in rats -- Hill et al. 255 (4): 616 -- AJP - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology

NEJM -- Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency

The last one cracks me up... even though almost all the levels were the same after the diet, they still conclude!?!?!?! that it might play a part? I swear, no wonder people are so confused out there, scientists and researchers just end up saying what they want to say anyways.

Looks like I'm getting teamed up on. Muscle does burn more calories than fat obviously but it is not as much as most people will claim. When I am talking about raising metabolism I am refering mostly to EPOC after the workout where a persons metabolism will be raised for hours afterwords to repair damaged muscle fibers, replaced used up muscle glycogen....

Can you seriously say that eating one to two meals a day at 800 calories is the same as eating 4 meals a day at 400 calories? They both will equal 1600 calories so they are the same. This is clearly not the case and I hope you don't disagree with that.

An another note I rereead that post and I still do not agree that you burn the same amount of calories if you have been doing the same thing in your workout routine. That is personal training 101 and it is why plateaus are usually hit. The study they used in that posting first had to do with Lance Armstrong. I don't think you can compare a study with Lance Armstrong to the general population. It is obvious that it will be hard for him to improve energy efficiency with the amount he has trained. If you take a normal person trying to lose weight they probably haven't done anything before and they will see dramatic effeciency improvements in the beginning of their workout. The human body is an amazing thing and also very lazy. It will find a way to get better at doing the same work and use less energy. This doesn't mean you have run harder or lift more weight, it just means you have to do something different.

I'm not trying to start any fights here I just want to make sure everything I am saying makes sense and that I just disagree with what was stated from others. There is no one right way to train I just have preferences to certain training techniques that have worked for my clients.

Sure.

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.

With regards to your exercise efficiency statements here:

and

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:

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.

What sort of problems?

What do you mean by "the high end of your metabolism"?

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.

Thanks for posting those studies. I did have a couple comments though. On the first study, the link didn't work so I couldn't read the whole study. It looks like they are looking mostly at the thermic effect of food. I agree that this isn't a huge number when looking at weight loss and it should not be a huge concern. The second study I thought was very interesting. They pretty proved my point. When you don't eat often your body started to breakdown protein for energy and slows down fat oxidation. If you don't eat small meals you basically are encourage muscle breakdown and slowing down fat metabolism.

I do agree that studies often can be confusing. One study shows that doing this will help you out with this other study shows that it will kill you.

Did you ever read the big Laforgia review, it's got pretty much every paper up to about 2006 in terms of EPOC?

You really oversimplifying the human body here. Similar in what sense?

In what sense?

Hahaha. Let's keep this civil friend. That is not personal training 101. I'm not sure how many people you've trained but that, by far and away, is not the reason for plateaus in my experience.

You really missed the message of that article.

Namely these points:

- Tracked over approximately 7 years of training, Lance improved his efficiency by a whopping 8%. Or roughly 1% PER YEAR.

- “It is hypothesized that the improved muscular efficiency probably reflects changes in muscle myosin type stimulated from years of training intensely for 3-6 h on most days.”

- Read that closely, three to six hours of cycling per day damn near EVERY DAY to get a 1% efficiency increase PER YEAR.

- And yet, somehow, folks think that walking on the treadmill a few times per week is going to ramp up their efficiency such that they are burning massively less calories during their workouts after a few weeks.

- Note: a recent controversy has erupted over the paper I cited above. There are now accusations that Coyle mis-analyzed the data; the re-intrepretation suggests that Lance actually did not improve his efficiency much at all. Which is yet another nail in the coffin of the entire argument:

- if Lance Armstrong, cycling 6 hours per day damn near daily for years on end isn’t becoming more efficient, someone walking on the treadmill a few times per week damn sure isn’t either.

You are misapplying the information.

This isn't a fight.

No way.

It's simply a discussion of the data at hand.

This isn't about training methodology. It's about physiological principles.

Not if protein is adequate in the diet.

Let's not get into a game of cherry picking research to fit your model.

3 vs 6 meals

Both plans have equal calories and macros and both contain adequate protein and efas.

Why is 6 better than 3?

Steve,

You gave me a lot to read over and I will take a look at all of it and if I have any more comments I'll let you know. I don't remember saying anything about 3 or 6 meals though. I feel like we shouldn't be having this discussion but I could be wrong. Would you recommend someone to eat one meal a day as long as there are in a caloric deficit? Wouldn't you agree that ideally everyone should be eating a few meals a day? If you do then it doesn't matter that we are talking about. If you disagree then I will do my best to show you research based on what I am talking about.

No.

As I've said previously, obviously 1 meal per day isn't optimal. But you're moving goal posts. You stated eating 1 large meal per day will cause you to get fat.

That's what is in contention. Not if one meal per day is optimal or healthy.

Just if an individual will, over time, gain fat in the face of an energetic deficit... that's what's in contention.

You're right, let's stick to the original problem. My apologies for throwing in the 3 vs. 6... but you were discussing meal frequency here, were you not?

Yup.

But that's not what's in contention.

Yes it does, lol.

This is what's in contention.

Thank you for pointing out the first major flaw of this thread Steve.

Since then, it had been a hodge podge of bad information, and Motherof2 getting seriously confused.

I just sent Alan an email seeing if he'd be interested in commenting further in this thread.

Unfortunately, since I am new to this forum I cannot post any url's until I have more postings. Once I can I will be able to post links to research articles. Before I do want to be clear with what is at contention. We both agree that ideally eating more often is more beneficial. I understand there are plenty of studies showing that you may not loss more weight if you eat more often, but the other problems that arise with one meal a day even if it is in a caloric deficit need to be considered. Things like increased blood pressure, hunger pains, increased fat oxidation, increased LDL levels....

It seems we are talking about metabolism of eating a large meal and what happens to the calories. I am saying there is a point at which your body cannot use all the calories for normal body functions and begins to store it until it needs it. Is this what you disagree with?