» Site Navigation | | | » Tag Cloud | | Search Tags | » Stats |
Members: 34,511
Threads: 16,120
Posts: 168,361
Top Poster: maleficent (21,185) | | Welcome to our newest member, sassysmom22 | | | Welcome to Weight Loss Forum - This information will disappear after Registration.
| | |
Welcome to the Weight Loss Forum forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
Note: After registering, you will receive an activation email. This will contain a link required to fully activate your account and allow you to post. Some email providers may put this in your JUNK or SPAM folder.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
|  | | 
May 2nd, 2007, 03:13 PM
|  | DREAM IT, WANT IT, LIVE IT | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Deos Fortioribus Adesse
Posts: 14,095
Rep Power: 421244 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by corndogggy For whatever it's worth, I have found that 5 or 6 meals a day works alot better for me. By doing that I can control toppling right on the edge where I had just enough energy to last until the next eating time. If I only ate 3 meals, then I would either overeat, or I would go hungry for awhile before the next eating time. When I eat 5 meals... come 10 AM I start to get hungry, so I eat a snack. Come noon time, I get hungry, so I eat lunch. I know that I'll get hungry again at 3 PM. I can be MUCH more accurate with food intake without having to count calories when I eat 5 times a day. I was able to lose weight and never go hungry more than maybe 30 seconds.  | No doubt. I ONLY said eating more meals doesn't do much in terms of speeding up your metabolism.  | 
May 2nd, 2007, 05:52 PM
|  | Steve is my brother | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Ramsey NJ
Posts: 952
Rep Power: 14325 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve | I wouldnt mind seeing the others as well. Im trying to locate a study that shows frequent meals were better. Its in a book I have, but not sourced.
I cant really take too much of what the above studies say as truth. Im not arguing you in any way and I definitely agree that one should eat in a way that is possible. However none of these studies lasted more than two weeks, and the one that did a second assessment at four weeks was feeding obese women 1000k/cal. I did find this however from the first: Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral.
Im gonna see what I can find, either way. | 
May 2nd, 2007, 06:24 PM
|  | DREAM IT, WANT IT, LIVE IT | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Deos Fortioribus Adesse
Posts: 14,095
Rep Power: 421244 | | | Again Tony, you are looking for one study. I provided a few. I do have more, I will dig them up. But as I said before, when science doesn't match real world results, you don't throw out the real world.
Plus, you are going to have a hard time finding ANY studies that deal with populations that you and I are interested in.
I've worked with a lot of people. I am sure you have too. Test it out yourself. Eating 3 opposed to 5 or 6 doesn't make a great deal of difference, as long as you account for proper cals, proteins, efas, and micros. None actually, that are measurable that I have seen.
I know JB is a huge fan of multiple meals, and truthfully.... so am I.
Lyle, on the other hand, is not. Well, he agrees with me. Or I should say I agree with him, that TEF has little impact on overall metabolic rate. | 
May 2nd, 2007, 06:30 PM
|  | DREAM IT, WANT IT, LIVE IT | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Deos Fortioribus Adesse
Posts: 14,095
Rep Power: 421244 | | | I should add, especially since this is a stickie and a lot read our words.... one more time, that I advocate more frequent feedings. 5+ to be exact.
But in the context of the discussion Tony and I are having, I am simply debating that reaching your physique goals is possible without eating 5+ meals. In the same amount of time even. | 
May 2nd, 2007, 07:41 PM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: California Coastal Redwoods
Posts: 6,453
Rep Power: 204720 | | | I love eating frequently, makes me forget I'm dieting.....which lately I'm not.....but today I did good! (1835) This thread sure is great!
__________________ **H:171*C:145*G:137-143** | 
May 3rd, 2007, 05:00 AM
|  | Steve is my brother | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Ramsey NJ
Posts: 952
Rep Power: 14325 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Again Tony, you are looking for one study. I provided a few. I do have more, I will dig them up. But as I said before, when science doesn't match real world results, you don't throw out the real world.
Plus, you are going to have a hard time finding ANY studies that deal with populations that you and I are interested in.
I've worked with a lot of people. I am sure you have too. Test it out yourself. Eating 3 opposed to 5 or 6 doesn't make a great deal of difference, as long as you account for proper cals, proteins, efas, and micros. None actually, that are measurable that I have seen.
I know JB is a huge fan of multiple meals, and truthfully.... so am I.
Lyle, on the other hand, is not. Well, he agrees with me. Or I should say I agree with him, that TEF has little impact on overall metabolic rate. | Well Im looking for one that was in a book I have. Of course my views align with yours, cals in/cals out is more essential. I think Venuto is a multiple meals guy as well. Regardless, at least there is some literature out there. I think Leigh herself is doing some sort of testing of this, not sure exactly though. | 
May 3rd, 2007, 05:24 AM
|  | DREAM IT, WANT IT, LIVE IT | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Deos Fortioribus Adesse
Posts: 14,095
Rep Power: 421244 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by tonymcclellan Well Im looking for one that was in a book I have. Of course my views align with yours, cals in/cals out is more essential. I think Venuto is a multiple meals guy as well. Regardless, at least there is some literature out there. I think Leigh herself is doing some sort of testing of this, not sure exactly though. | Tom is actually a friend of mine. We had an extremely lengthy convo via email regarding this subject. IF I still have it in my email, maybe I will ask Tom if I can share his thoughts with you.
Gist of it was, real world is sometimes in front of science obviously. I mean, bodybuilders have been saying for years that protein requirements are higher than what the government suggests. We were ahead of science.
He listed many, many benefits that come from frequent feeding which is fine and dandy. I am not arguing the efficacy of frequent feeding. I am arguing its impact of over all body recomposition and metabolic rate.
And even if 5 years down the road we have clear cut studies showing its efficacy, my point all along is this:
IF we are working with an individual who has an insane schedule. Think wall street, which I did have a client who worked there. He couldn't stop to eat 5+ times per day. It just wasn't feasible for him. It is not wise to persuade him to change up his schedule just to fit in the more frequent feedings, IMO, when he can get just as good results wrt physique had he eaten 3 meals.
Of course we should always promote frequent feedings, but not push frequent feedings....KWIM?
Long term adherence to a lifestyle is much more important IMO, and pushing a square into a round hole (as in the above wall street example) doesn't mix well with long term adherence.
Numerous meals I do believe should be a guideline that everyone should try and follow. But I think the big benefits that come from it have more to do with other things besides TEF.
Don't get me wrong, TEF is a contributing factor to caloric expenditure. However, what is the metabolic difference from eating 5 meals per day opposed to 3 given the same caloric and macro consumption?
I HIGHLY doubt much based on the studies I have seen and the work I have done. The food sits in the GI tract longer, that is all. Still takes energy to catabolize the higher nutrient consumption of less frequent meals.
I do think Leigh is doing some work on this. I had a convo with her a while ago. I don't think we were discussing meal frequency though.... I thought it was more in line with total caloric intake, energy deficits, and metabolic slowdowns from various energy deficits. I could be wrong though..... Leigh, maybe you can shed some light on the work you are doing. | 
May 3rd, 2007, 05:32 AM
|  | Steve is my brother | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Ramsey NJ
Posts: 952
Rep Power: 14325 | | | Thats cool that Tom is your pal. From what I take of his interview on G-Flux with Berardi, his Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle is pretty much along the same lines.
+rep for Steve. | 
May 3rd, 2007, 05:36 AM
|  | DREAM IT, WANT IT, LIVE IT | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Deos Fortioribus Adesse
Posts: 14,095
Rep Power: 421244 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by tonymcclellan Thats cool that Tom is your pal. From what I take of his interview on G-Flux with Berardi, his Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle is pretty much along the same lines.
+rep for Steve. | Thanks Tony.
Tom is a very inspirational guy, man. If you read BFFM, it seems very simplistic. It covers the basics and doesn't get into anything insane (hardcore science). I wondered how smart he was.
When you talk to him, you know that he is one of the "good ones." They guy knows his stuff, and then some. If you haven't read his book, I suggest you do. I recommended it to a lot of my clients back in the day. I disagree with some parts of it, but overall, it is one of the most indepth books for beginners I have ever seen, covering all subjects. | 
May 3rd, 2007, 05:58 AM
| | Member | | Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 693
Rep Power: 32 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve If you read BFFM | Did you know that if you search for BFFM on Amazon.com, the #1 result is Jimmy Buffett's book?  | 
May 3rd, 2007, 06:17 AM
|  | DREAM IT, WANT IT, LIVE IT | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Deos Fortioribus Adesse
Posts: 14,095
Rep Power: 421244 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by corndogggy Did you know that if you search for BFFM on Amazon.com, the #1 result is Jimmy Buffett's book?  | Haha, really? That is funny. | 
May 3rd, 2007, 06:37 AM
|  | Junior Member | | Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New England
Posts: 289
Rep Power: 40 | | Quote: |
Don't get caught up in the way of thinking where you actually start to believe that what you are doing is futile. As long as you are doing SOMETHING, you are on the right track. It's those who give up who are heading in the wrong direction.
| This is so true.
And look for the sucesses where you least expect them.
Are you stronger?
Are you seeing positive changes in your skin, eyes, hair and nails ?
These are some pleasant surprises I have had, even though they were not in my initial goals. They are bonus!
Getting fit requires constant re-assessment as the body changes. And another thing, I have to learn to be more patient. I think a lot of people have my problem. It's a generational thing, maybe. We want it NOW.
I know I ain't getting it now. I might as well enjoy the ride.
__________________ Started eating healthier March 7, 2007. | 
May 3rd, 2007, 07:55 AM
|  | Steve is my brother | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Ramsey NJ
Posts: 952
Rep Power: 14325 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by corndogggy Did you know that if you search for BFFM on Amazon.com, the #1 result is Jimmy Buffett's book?  | Because its only an e-book. | 
May 3rd, 2007, 08:38 AM
| | Member | | Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 693
Rep Power: 32 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by tonymcclellan Because its only an e-book. | $40 and you don't even get a physical book to keep? Damn. | 
May 3rd, 2007, 08:50 AM
|  | DREAM IT, WANT IT, LIVE IT | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Deos Fortioribus Adesse
Posts: 14,095
Rep Power: 421244 | | | | |