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!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
HealthCare & Wellness Breaking the Chains of Addiction. The Last Door Recovery Society
Mature discussion surrounding important health issues and concerns. Alternative therapies, healthcare questions, discussion of community resources, peer support help, group therapy, etc.
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 24h 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.
There are 100s of diet strategies, but I feel that lost among all the different techniques and plans is that at the end of the day you just have to "burn" more than you "consume". It's simple math.
It's generally accepted that eating small meals at higher frequency is more healthy than big meals at lower frequency. You want to prevent insulin spikes as much as possible.
But the great thing about eating at higher frequency is that u will be less likely to over eat. So I think it's more behavioral than biological
__________________
Ignorance is bliss
How I wish I can remain ignorant, why do I know so much?
am i think only one who thinks you should eat whenever you're hungry? and dont eat more than you have to to be full? i've always thought this 4+ meals a day thing was bs.
No its not simple math. its not just pure quantitiy u have to observe...but the quality of the food (complex carbs vs simple etc)
__________________
Quote:
[23-07, 02:03] shawn79 i find that at vietnamese place they cut ur hair like they cut grass
[23-07, 02:03] shawn79 do u go to vietnamese places for haircuts
It's not the 'eating 6 meals a day' that 'boosts' metabolism. It's regular eating of low-carb food that keeps your insulin from spiking/dumping that makes you lose weight.
If you eat 6 crap meals a day, of course you're not going to lose weight.
i just follow john berardi's 7 rules. works pretty well for me.
Quote:
The 7 Rules of Good Nutrition
Here’s my take on it. I call these principles, "The 7 Rules of Good Nutrition."
These aren’t the newest techniques from the latest cutting-edge plan. Rather, they are simple, time-tested, no nonsense habits that you need to get into when designing a good eating program.
1. Eat every 2-3 hours, no matter what. You should eat between 5-8 meals per day.
2. Eat complete (containing all the essential amino acids), lean protein with each meal.
3. Eat fruits and/or vegetables with each food meal.
4. Ensure that your carbohydrate intake comes from fruits and vegetables. Exception: workout and post-workout drinks and meals.
5. Ensure that 25-35% of your energy intake comes from fat, with your fat intake split equally between saturates (e.g. animal fat), monounsaturates (e.g., olive oil), and polyunsaturates (e.g. flax oil, salmon oil).
6. Drink only non-calorie containing beverages, the best choices being water and green tea.
7. Eat mostly whole foods (except workout and post-workout drinks).
So what about calories, or macronutrient ratios, or any number of other things that I’ve covered in other articles? The short answer is that if you aren’t already practicing the above-mentioned habits, and by practicing them I mean putting them to use over 90% of the time (i.e., no more than 4 meals out of an average 42 meals per week violate any of those rules), everything else is pretty pointless.
It's generally accepted that eating small meals at higher frequency is more healthy than big meals at lower frequency. You want to prevent insulin spikes as much as possible.
But the great thing about eating at higher frequency is that u will be less likely to over eat. So I think it's more behavioral than biological
You prevent insulin spikes by choosing what you eat. The whole idea of 6-8 meals a day is a total waste of time (thermogenic effect of food is really quite negligible). It is easier to be satiated with 3 meals a day than it is 6 simply because the volume in your stomach is being filled.
It's not the 'eating 6 meals a day' that 'boosts' metabolism. It's regular eating of low-carb food that keeps your insulin from spiking/dumping that makes you lose weight.
If you eat 6 crap meals a day, of course you're not going to lose weight.
Another way to regulate insulin levels is just to fast for 20h or so.
Of the total decline in plasma insulin, 70% occurred within the first 24 h of fasting. These results demonstrate that the mobilization of adipose tissue triglycerides increases markedly between 18 and 24 h of fasting in young adult men
am i think only one who thinks you should eat whenever you're hungry? and dont eat more than you have to to be full? i've always thought this 4+ meals a day thing was bs.
The problem is some people just dont get hungry that often. The whole point of the eating at a set time is to make sure that the person is staying consistent and less likely to "cheat" or even forget to eat. Insulin is a double edged sword. It can either be your best friend or your worst enemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp
^^ That's good except it allows for people to misinterpret and eat too much fruit. Fruits OR vegetables with every meal is a recipe for disaster
I agree with fruit but for the most part I dont think you can eat too much veggies. Most veggies have next to no calories and the net carbs of them are next to nothing. The only problem I could see is if someone has next to no appetite the veggies might fill them up too long that they dont end up eating anything but veggies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aither
You prevent insulin spikes by choosing what you eat. The whole idea of 6-8 meals a day is a total waste of time (thermogenic effect of food is really quite negligible). It is easier to be satiated with 3 meals a day than it is 6 simply because the volume in your stomach is being filled.
I think its more of a psychological effect. Also from an evolutionary point of view it makes sense. Its sorta like drinking water all the time. If you drink a lot of water your body ends up not storing as much. If you eat often your body doesnt feel the need to store fat for a potential famine.. Basically you are tricking your body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aither
Another way to regulate insulin levels is just to fast for 20h or so.
So after you fast for 20 hours what do you do? What if you have 10-20 lbs to lose? Do you just keep on doing 20 hour fasts till its gone?
I have heard something about fasting being a good thing after a really bad cheat day but that isnt something you want to be doing long term.
__________________
The harder I lift and the more I eat, the better my genetics seem to get.
I think its more of a psychological effect. Also from an evolutionary point of view it makes sense. Its sorta like drinking water all the time. If you drink a lot of water your body ends up not storing as much. If you eat often your body doesnt feel the need to store fat for a potential famine.. Basically you are tricking your body.
Eating 6 meals a day vs 3 meals a day vs 1 meal a day (assuming same number of calories) has no effect on your basic metabolic rate. If your body was storing fat for a potential famine, it would enter famine mode and store fat.
6 meals a day to "trick" your body into burning more fuel is a myth. From an evolutionary point of view, it makes no sense. In the stone age, you hunted to eat and ate as much as possible because there was no such thing as fridges to keep food fresh. It was feast or famine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penner2k
So after you fast for 20 hours what do you do? What if you have 10-20 lbs to lose? Do you just keep on doing 20 hour fasts till its gone?
I have heard something about fasting being a good thing after a really bad cheat day but that isnt something you want to be doing long term.
Why isn't it something you want to do long term? It's a really simple way to reduce your caloric intake and has no detrimental effects to your metabolism.
Sugar. Not just that, but the worst kind (fructose)
This is not a trolling question but a serious one.
Has there been any studies whatsoever clearly demonstrate the dangers of over-eating fruit? A few of the healthiest people I know (active, in great shape, good physique) eat huge quantities of fruits and vegetables (but not vegetarian).
I haven't looked too much into it yet, but I believe that not all sugar is the same in the way that not all calories are the same. Glucose-fructose (aka HFCS) has been shown that it is metabolized differently to other naturally occuring sugars. Obviously Glucose-Fructose is not the same as Fructose.
This is not a trolling question but a serious one.
Has there been any studies whatsoever clearly demonstrate the dangers of over-eating fruit? A few of the healthiest people I know (active, in great shape, good physique) eat huge quantities of fruits and vegetables (but not vegetarian).
I haven't looked too much into it yet, but I believe that not all sugar is the same in the way that not all calories are the same. Glucose-fructose (aka HFCS) has been shown that it is metabolized differently to other naturally occuring sugars. Obviously Glucose-Fructose is not the same as Fructose.
yes, look up fatty liver disease. people who have it (and many do) basically have the liver of an alcoholic. you'll find a lot of info on Dr. eades' blog. sorry can't be more useful, I'm on mobile Posted via RS Mobile
also when you do eat high quantities of fruit, just make sure it has a high ratio of vitamins/minerals/antioxidants to sugar. Berries are excellent. Posted via RS Mobile
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!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
