Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 The Weight Loss Thread v3, Ask your weight loss questions here.

views
     
darkseifer
post Apr 16 2012, 08:18 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
255 posts

Joined: Nov 2004


QUOTE(sayoonarra @ Apr 16 2012, 07:04 AM)
5 spoons? how many cups is that?  hmm.gif  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.
darkseifer
post Apr 17 2012, 08:40 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
255 posts

Joined: Nov 2004


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
darkseifer
post Apr 17 2012, 03:14 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
255 posts

Joined: Nov 2004


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
QUOTE
A study was conducted to investigate whether there is a diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization in man and how this is affected by meal frequency to explain possible consequences of meal frequency for body weight regulation. When the daily energy intake is consumed in a small number of large meals, there is an increased chance to become overweight, possibly by an elevated lipogenesis (fat synthesis and accumulation) or storage of energy after the meal. Thirteen subjects, two males and eleven females, were fed to energy balance in two meals per day (gorging pattern) and seven meals per day (nibbling pattern) over 2-day intervals. On the second day on each feeding regimen, the diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization was calculated from simultaneous measurements of oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production and urinary nitrogen excretion over 3 h intervals in a respiration chamber. A gorging pattern of energy intake resulted in a stronger diurnal periodicity of nutrient utilization, compared to a nibbling pattern. However, there were no consequences for the total 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) of the two feeding patterns (5.57 +/- 0.16 kJ/min for the gorging pattern; 5.44 +/- 0.18 kJ/min for the nibbling pattern). Concerning the periodicity of nutrient utilization, protein oxidation during the day did not change between the two feeding patterns. In the gorging pattern, carbohydrate oxidation was significantly elevated during the interval following the first meal (ie from 1200 h to 1500 h, P less than 0.01) and the second meal (ie from 1800 h to 2100 h, P less than 0.05). The decreased rate of carbohydrate oxidation observed during the fasting period (from rising in the morning until the first meal at 1200 h), was compensated by an increased fat oxidation from 0900 to 1200 h to cover energy needs. In the nibbling pattern, carbohydrate and fat oxidation remained relatively constant during the active hours of the day.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
QUOTE
Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. 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. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.


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
darkseifer
post Apr 26 2012, 07:56 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
255 posts

Joined: Nov 2004


QUOTE(RedShirt @ Apr 26 2012, 06:39 PM)
Hi guys, I looking for some advices about weight loss and maintaining it.

To my understanding is that maintaining a calories deficit diet/lifestyle is the way to lose weight and when my calories intake equals my calories burned, my weight maintains.

Lets just say if I start a strict diet to lower my calories intake drastically while maintaining my physical activities as per usual (weight training and cardio), I should be losing weight (while I understand that it will be a net loss in weight but it is lesser because of muscle build and that muscle weight is actually heavier than fat).

So with all the exercise and strict diet, say I am able to shed 15kg and I am happy and satisfied with my current body weight. My main question is now, whether if I continue with my exercise routines (no change in style or intensity) but I am no longer following a strict diet and revert to my usual diet pattern (healthy and nothing excessively). Would I still be able to maintain my new weight or my weight will increase back to my old previous weight ?

I read that bigger muscle build would result in higher metabolism and if I do not eat excessively, I should still be able to maintain a slight calorie deficit if not equal calorie intake and consumption to maintain my new lighter body weight.

Any views in my theory ?
*
Sup brah. It seems like you answered your own question?
"To my understanding is that maintaining a calories deficit diet/lifestyle is the way to lose weight and when my calories intake equals my calories burned, my weight maintains."
-All you have to do is adjust your eating accordingly to your maintenance calories if you want to maintain. Assuming you are still in a deficit, if you plan to return to maintenance, add a small amount of calories weekly till you reach maintenance calories.

On to the next
"I read that bigger muscle build would result in higher metabolism and if I do not eat excessively, I should still be able to maintain a slight calorie deficit if not equal calorie intake and consumption to maintain my new lighter body weight."
-This is something that is usually blown out of proportion. Yes a 1lb of muscle tissue burns more calories than 1lb fat tissue, however its pretty insignificant. Lets put some numbers to it.
1lb of muscle burns about 6 calories at rest and fat burns about 2 calories at rest. Lets assume that you lose 10lbs of fat and gain 10lbs of muscle. You're going to weigh the same, but of course you're going to look a heck of a lot better. So back to the point, you're going to burn an additional 40 calories a day due to the change in body composition. Not very significant. For it to be very significant you have to build a significant amount of muscle which will take a very long time to reach.
darkseifer
post May 3 2012, 06:46 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
255 posts

Joined: Nov 2004


QUOTE(leah.semilla1 @ May 3 2012, 02:39 PM)
struggle no more! try to feed your appetite and feel happy every time you eat, because you know what? studies shows that every time you feel guilty after eating it can lead to stress and during stress our body normally release the stress hormone(cortisol). Too much cortisol can slow your metabolism, causing more weight gain than you would normally experience.  icon_idea.gif
*
So as long as you feel happy after eating you won't gain weight?? Riveting tale.
darkseifer
post Jun 8 2012, 06:29 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
255 posts

Joined: Nov 2004


QUOTE(gannicholas @ Jun 7 2012, 11:45 PM)
without sugar, unless worst come to worst brown sugar  tongue.gif
*
Why? The difference is only marginal.

Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0621sec    0.47    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 07:24 PM