Continued from v2

V1
http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1056090

V2
http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1518200

This post has been edited by Syd G: Apr 13 2012, 04:30 PM

Why isn't there like a pinned sticky about the science behind losing weight ?

Should I make one ?


It would curb the amount of "HOw do I lose weight" threads.

Losing weights is a big struggle for me

losing weight is not big deal, maintain the weight after you losing it is something serious. I am on the process of losing weight now, build up the awareness of healthy lifestyle and selective eating but those delicious are just too tempting.

Thanks Syd G for getting this pinned and the new thread.

Could you also place these links on your first posting as a reference

V1
http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1056090

V2
http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1518200

waaa.....V3 ^^

waaa V3 already !!

since I posted this in the end of V2, so I guess I repost this to get you guys opinion about it.

5 spoons? how many cups is that? imho, instead of 3 meals. split it into 5-6 meals in order to keep your metabolism rate high. protein intake too less as well. cheers

That is a myth.

Second that

well, apparently the myth works for me. i dropped my BF% from 24 to 18 in 5 weeks and maintaining my muscle mass with high reps workout program. if you have time and commitment, no harm trying it out right?

This post has been edited by sayoonarra: Apr 16 2012, 08:04 PM

I dont think one could called it a myth, studies has shown its inconclusive. we should not be concluding anything just based on a one or two studies. A new study would show otherwise.

Regular (consistent) Split meals has its benefits in many ways.

This post has been edited by VeeJay: Apr 17 2012, 12:17 AM

Inconclusive? One or two studies? There has been more than 10 done iirc, and they were all pretty much conclusive, that frequent feedings have no effect on metabolism compared to fewer feedings.. The fact that its been replicated so many times means its very conclusive.

Perhaps there are other benefits, but there is no metabolic advantage to it.

Link to said study please. Does it assert that there is metabolic advantage to frequent feedings? Otherwise, skip it.

This post has been edited by darkseifer: Apr 17 2012, 08:41 AM

honestly i've tried both.....many meals and 3 meals per day, i dont see much changes in my metabolism as well as my weight.....DL do it with only 3 meals and now i'm on 3 meals most of the day as well....still okay with my weight and all....so yea, i'm with darkseifer this time

somewhat I agreed with you but not as whole....when looking from a holistic view, it has more benefits to split the meals, hence that practice should not be discarded in a fly.

Eating 3 meals is fine, if you know what you are doing, and have planned your micros/marcos.

sorry, I'm unable to detail my thoughts further....short of time...hence copy and paste reading material below...

<<
Meal frequency was related to BMI and should be considered when developing guidelines to prevent childhood overweight.

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n1/abs/0803654a.html
>>

<<
Eating meals regularly is inversely associated to the metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance and (high) serum concentrations of gamma-glutamyl transferase. These findings suggest that eating meals irregularly may be part of several potential environmental risk factors that are associated with the metabolic syndrome and may have future implications in giving dietary advice to prevent and/or treat the syndrome.

http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v16/n6/f...by2008203a.html
>>

<<
The prevalence of obesity decreased by number of daily meals: three or fewer meals, 4.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.8 to 6.1]; four meals, 2.8% (95% CI, 2.1 to 3.7); and 5 or more meals, 1.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.4). These effects could not be explained by confounding due to a wide range of constitutional, sociodemographic, and lifestyle factors. The adjusted odds ratios for obesity were 0.73 (95% CI, 0.44 to 1.21) for four meals and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.89) for five or more meals. Additional analyses pointed to a higher energy intake in nibblers compared with gorgers.

http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v13/n11/...by2005238a.html
>>

<<

Eating meals regularly is inversely associated to the metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance and (high) serum concentrations of gamma-glutamyl transferase. These findings suggest that eating meals irregularly may be part of several potential environmental risk factors that are associated with the metabolic syndrome and may have future implications in giving dietary advice to prevent and/or treat the syndrome.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1838890...act&holding=npg
>>

<<

Results: Omitting a meal was followed by increases in fat mass (360 plusminus 115 grams, p < 0.05), late evening leptin concentration (20.7 plusminus 11.0% , p < 0.05), and respiratory quotient (3.7 plusminus 1.4% , p < 0.05). Increase in the percentage of dietary fat during the habituation period (+4.1 plusminus 2.0% , p < 0.05) was correlated with fat mass (r = 0.66, p < 0.05). Adding a meal had no effect, but, in both groups, the change in energy content at this fourth eating occasion was correlated with the change in adiposity.

Discussion: Our results suggest that adiposity may increase when young lean male subjects switch from a four- to a three-meal pattern by removing their usual afternoon meal. This effect could be partly mediated by a change in the macronutrient composition of the diet.

http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v14/n2/f...oby200628a.html
>>

<<
The irregular meal frequency appears to produce a degree of insulin resistance and higher fasting lipid profiles, which may indicate a deleterious effect on these cardiovascular risk factors.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15220950
>>

<<
The data indicate that increased meal frequency may have a beneficial effect on a reduced BMI. Physical activity and breakfast skipping may be candidate targets for prevention programmes aimed at reducing overweight/obesity among adolescents

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18274921
>>


Clearly the above shows that there is a link of meal frequency and metabolism, muscle mass, obesity and fat loss, insulin resistance.

Hence we should not brush aside meal frequency and metabolism or the other body's characteristic changes to the affect.

And clearly I dont want to pick a fight, just matter of discussion, and hope others could throw some factual light as well.

Cheers.

This post has been edited by VeeJay: Apr 17 2012, 02:26 PM

You did not present a cohesive argument. I would advice you not to straw man my position and stay on topic. Nobody said that frequent feedings is useless. Did you not properly read my original response? The previous poster recommended to split meals to keep metabolism high. Frequent feedings to increase metabolism is a myth. I did not say anything else.

The assertion: Does meal frequency increase metabolism?

The answer is no. Its that simple. Controlled trials have demonstrated that clearly.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494


Thus adding more meals while keeping total calorie intake the same does nothing to improve metabolism. You posted nothing to refute that. By the way, correlation does not imply causation, keep in mind the next time you decide to draw conclusions from behavioural/statistical studies.

This post has been edited by darkseifer: Apr 17 2012, 04:08 PM

split it into 5-6 meals in order to keep your metabolism rate high.

Er...i think post above you explained all, no?

Tried the 5-6 meal method. No difference for me in terms of result. It just felt more irritating. Broscience sux. Lol.