Beneficial in what sense? That's a pretty broad term considering the complexity of the 'system' we're discussing here, I hope you'd agree?

This is not what's in contention.

I've clearly quoted you numerous times now as to what's in contention. The words that I directly quoted you saying (typing) is what's in contention.

For the most part, yes.

Hence the reason I posted this article. Lyle says it better than I possibly could have regarding the subject:

Meal Frequency and Energy Balance | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

This is the key right here. SDPT - I think you'll end up thanking Steve. Given that you have enough intelligence and gumption to make it through grad school & professional credentialing, I think you'll appreciate the links he provided. Steve has pretty much countered the things you're incorrect on, but I'd like to comment on this bit in particular:
While it's true that (generally speaking) more of a large meal is stored as fat compared to a small meal, if calories are matched between a gorging protocol and a grazing protocol, the thermogenic and body compositional effects will be similar, as shown in tightly controlled metabolic ward studies. This is because the gorging pattern has longer fasting phases wherein a greater oxidation of stored fat occurs. So, looking at things conversely, while a grazing pattern may cause less fat storage per meal, it also has less fat oxidation opportunity between meals compared to a gorging pattern. This is why they even out in terms of weight/fat/thermogenesis when calories are matched between treatments.

Much appreciated Alan, thanks for checking in.

I hate to tear you away from the mecca of bro-speak that bb.com is!

Don't forget to take your waximaize & bcaas, bro!!1

Nevarrr!!!11

For seriously though...



For those checking into this thread; I heavily endorse a read through Alan's site. I know a lot of people look to me for information. Well, Alan is a source of much of what I know.

Check him out at:

AlanAragon.com - Fitness Based on Science & Experience

I do quite often, Steve.

An excellent informative discussion, between two people I respect (Alan and you).

Much to learn.

It never stops.

And, never should.

Swell the brains cells for the: WIN!

he, he.....

Best wishes,

Chillen

I did read over much of the links that were posted. And from what I can see you guys are telling me two different things. In one of the papers, it clearly states that in a fasting eating approach fat oxidation slows down and protein oxidation speeds up. You just said the opposite. I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me then. Here is the bottom line. I joined this forum to try and help people lose weight and keep it off not to argue over physiology. I do enjoy learning more and more everyday and I take to heart everything you have posted in contrast to mine. I do not want to give bad information. I just don't think we are seeing eye to eye on this one so let's just let it go. I just want to help the original poster who I'm sure has lost interest long ago. If you want to keep discussing this we can but I think we would serve this forum better if we just came up with a good answer for the person with the problem. If you don't agree I can stop posting to this forum and find a different one.

Hmm...

First, this forum has proven to be an excellent resource for many, many people. One of the foundational factors contributing to its resourcefulness is the maintenance of integrity with regards to information.

This means if something is stated, especially by a 'professional', things get hashed out in a meaningful way and everyone interested learns something.

If you care to stay or go, that's on you. Just know that if I don't agree with something else you type, I'm not going to sit back without countering. I too am a professional in the industry. I love the opportunity to disagree with other professionals b/c in any event, I'll either help a fellow professional learn something which benefits the industry as a whole, or I'll learn something thus bettering my own ability as a trainer.

Most 'professionals' that find their way in here lose their cool and view these sorts of debates as attacks. Invariably they don't last long, as I'm sure you can imagine.

Second, I'm not sure where the confusion lies?

Through all the posts, my message gets hidden, but it's quite simplistic.

If net calories and macros are matched for the goal of fat loss, the number of meals are of little importance. If someone schedule only permits 1-2 feedings, sure, I doubt it's optimal. I don't believe research is conclusive on this at all. But I certainly don't believe a low meal frequency is going to override basic thermodynamics, which this quote of yours seems to imply.

I am totally fine with that. I won't expect you to sit back if you don't agree with a posting and I will do the same. I'm just surprised at your answer. When talk about fat loss you can't only look at the Law of Thermodynamics and nothing else. Yes you will lose weight if you are in a calorie deficit but are you losing fat or lean body mass and what stress are you putting on the body by fasting. Our recommendations are just different and people can use what ever they feel with work for them.

Can you point me to the paper that says this?
I think that as practitioners, a sincere attempt should be made to insure that our assertions are rooted in scientific research rather than traditional dogma or subjective opinion. Everything I recommend to the majority of clients can be backed with substantial amounts of research. In this discussion, Steve has thus far refuted claims you made with scientific research. Thus far your counter-arguments (that were on topic) have not been supported by research. If this were a discussion based on sharing personal experience, that would be one thing. But if you make assertions based on the physics of the body, it's implied that this discussion is scientific in nature, and thus, each physiological claim you make should have a research basis.

You know, this may simply be an issue where certain Universities are using outdated textbooks/information. Not every University is created equally and not every University is on the cutting edge of nutritional science, etc.

I think the bottom line is the more discussion there is about these things, the more we can all stand to learn from it. I, for one, read a lot of conflicting information. Individuals have to be able to find reputable sources. Being able to ascertain who is a reputable source and who isn't can be difficult. Moreover, just because a person has a PhD doesn't automatically make them an authority on a subject, because for them, it's publish or perish, therefore, not everybody who publishes a paper should be given due respect and credibility.

Thank you to Steve for bringing Alan into the discussion; and thank you Alan for taking the time to post.

ILM - you're welcome, and thanks to Steve for inviting me to contribute.

There's obviously nothing fundamentally wrong with recommending a high meal frequency, granted that the macronutrient targets are hit. However, the assumed detriments of a low meal frequency - particularly regarding body composition - are simply not substantiated. So far the majority of the literature shows that the widespread assumptions about low meal frequency (ie, compromised LBM retention, reduced 24-hr thermogenesis, etc) are simply not true when compared to a higher feeding frequency of the same macronutrient content. If the data overwhelmingly favored a higher frequency over a lower one for the aforementioned parameters, there really wouldn't be much debate here.

Hey Alan,

Love reading your stuff (I follow you and Lyle like a maniac, Steve really got me turned on to your stuff).

Now I feel like an idiot though since you referenced BCAA's / Waximaze sarcastically... I've been taking both of them (BCAA's pre-workout and Waximaze post for faster uptake). :P Ah well, gotta go back to the drawing board

For the record, I've seen where you've posted regarding WMS as a not necessary, where a banana will work just as well.

Regarding BCAA supplementation, whey is roughly 26% BCAA, and most high-quality animal-based protein sources are 18-26% BCAA. Thus supping BCAA on top of a pre-existent high protein intake is not likely help with anything but wallet leanness .

Regarding WMS - its application is limited to a very narrow set of conditions in endurance athletes who deplete glycogen in the same group of muscles more than once in a day. For everyone else, WMS is actually inferior in many respects to other carb sources that are wholefood-based.

Yeah I just read what you wrote over at BB.com regarding the subject. I am sure I can find a few doodes at the gym willing to buy my remaining BCAA/WMS stash

What sources do you suggest (I've seen you actually suggest bananas which I've used for the better part of a year now)?