[berserk]

And that eating many frequent small meals may lead to inflammation and increased risk of heart problems.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/counting-cal...oss-272980

Quote:

For anyone who has tried to lose weight at some point in their life, the advice of eating five small but frequent meals a day to help speed the process most probably sounds familiar. I personlly jumped at this mantra and thought of it as an escape from the fate of starvation offered by most other diets. Sadly, a soon-to-be-published study has debunked this old dieter’s motto. The study contends that the frequency of meals has absolutely nothing to do with weight loss. In fact, eating too frequently can actually cause inflammation in the blood, which will increase your risk of getting certain health problems. Researchers argue that no matter how much we may try to deny it, the only way to lose weight is to decrease the amount of calories you consume in a day.

There is A LOT of studies in recent years that completely debunk the old, low fat, frequent snacking paradigm.

As it seems, I would say science is more and more validating IF and paleo concepts.

[2014]

IF and paleo make sense because that's how we evolved.

We didn't always have an abundance of food so we adapted to our environment. I'd argue that IF and paleo should be taught in schools for all kids to learn, so that the next generation can un-learn all the nonsense given to us in the 70s and 80s.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...owfat.html

[alecks]

Wtf this is old news. Its energy balance. Simple

[JayMeister]

(03-28-2014 08:59 AM)2014 Wrote:  

IF and paleo make sense because that's how we evolved.

We didn't always have an abundance of food so we adapted to our environment. I'd argue that IF and paleo should be taught in schools for all kids to learn, so that the next generation can un-learn all the nonsense given to us in the 70s and 80s.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...owfat.html

There really is no substantial scientific backing for paleo and when I tried it (just for shits and giggles) for a few weeks I'd never felt worse tbh.

While it may be true that some foods are better for you than others (I personally don't think wheat and sugar products are particularly good and thus I avoid them as much as possible) there is no reason to assume that just because it was available in the stone age as food, makes it in any way better.

If you believe in paleo, you have to understand also that the human body is amazingly strong and capable of surviving in a multitude of conditions. Hunter/gatherer tribes did not have access to the variety of food we have today (for example many would never or almost never eat fish, others would never eat meat and others again would never find nuts). Not to mention that not many different kinds of fruits and vegetables were available.

In other words the modern diet is far superior due to the immense variety as well as abundance we have today. Unfortunately some choose to abuse that by overeating the wrong things while neglecting the healthy choices.

[RexImperator]

(03-28-2014 01:19 PM)alecks Wrote:  

Wtf this is old news. Its energy balance. Simple

Actually, I don't believe that's the whole story. Weight loss or gain involves at least : energy balance + endocrine system + human brain. Anything that doesn't take into account those other two and how they all interact is incomplete. Maybe it won't matter for a short term diet or experiment but eventually (in real life, over the long term) it will.

[Checkmat]

It is "old news" if you're current on internet forums.

There are still a lot of people that don't keep up to date on studies like this that still believe in "stroking the metabolic fire" and eating ever 2-3 hours and that you can only "absorb" 30g of protein in one sitting.

So with that being said, I think it's great that people keep posting and circulating new scientific information like this. We're still struggling to spread these facts to people who still believe the world is flat.

[Teutatis]

Actually I think most people outside the fitness world aren't even aware of the 30g of protein in one sitting myth. Lots of people don't even know what protein is or what it does. Weird, but true.
I have people asking me if I eat every three hours, six times a day to keep my metabolism going and I have to tell them no, it doesn't work like that at all. At the end of the day it only matters how many calories you ate, it doesn't matter if it was in two sittings or six, and it also doesn't matter if you eat at night or after 8.

[Basil Ransom]

Calorie counting is bullshit.

If you're a bodybuilder going to a competition, it's probably imperative. But other than that, it's mostly for people who want to eat the same shitty over processed sugary foods and still lose weight. They can't bear to be told no, you can't keep eating twinkies and iced lattes and still lose weight. So they calorie count. And inevitably stop and fail, and gain weight.

Or, their brain and gut is dysfunctional. They don't get the message to their brain to stop eating when they've had enough to eat.

This also protects the junk food manufacturers. Instead of 'don't drink soda,' they can say, 'enjoy coca cola as part of a balanced diet.'

"There really is no substantial scientific backing for paleo and when I tried it (just for shits and giggles) for a few weeks I'd never felt worse tbh. "

I'm guessing you followed mainstream paleo guidelines of a couples year back which forbid starches. There's a lot of mindless dogmatic paleotards spewing "GROK DIDNT EAT THAT" as their intellectual justification for everything. One of the best paleo advocates is Paul Jaminet, who recommends white rice and potatoes as starch sources. I myself struggle without starches.

Following the most basic paleo guidelines of minimal wheat, minimal added sugar, and minimal vegetable oils, high saturated fats is where most of the benefit will come from, and then ensuring you're not short of any micro nutrients like zinc, vitamin A, vitamin D, etc.

[berserk]

I don't think calorie counting is bs if you're a chronic fatass. A lot of people think they're not eating a lot until they actually break it all down and see how many calories they really eat. It's the same in reverse with people who say they can't gain weight. After a while of calorie counting, you'll know intuitively which foods are high in calories and low in nutrients and just stay clear of them.

[Checkmat]

(03-30-2014 04:24 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Calorie counting is bullshit.

If you're a bodybuilder going to a competition, it's probably imperative. But other than that, it's mostly for people who want to eat the same shitty over processed sugary foods and still lose weight. They can't bear to be told no, you can't keep eating twinkies and iced lattes and still lose weight. So they calorie count. And inevitably stop and fail, and gain weight.

Or, their brain and gut is dysfunctional. They don't get the message to their brain to stop eating when they've had enough to eat.

This also protects the junk food manufacturers. Instead of 'don't drink soda,' they can say, 'enjoy coca cola as part of a balanced diet.'

"There really is no substantial scientific backing for paleo and when I tried it (just for shits and giggles) for a few weeks I'd never felt worse tbh. "

I'm guessing you followed mainstream paleo guidelines of a couples year back which forbid starches. There's a lot of mindless dogmatic paleotards spewing "GROK DIDNT EAT THAT" as their intellectual justification for everything. One of the best paleo advocates is Paul Jaminet, who recommends white rice and potatoes as starch sources. I myself struggle without starches.

Following the most basic paleo guidelines of minimal wheat, minimal added sugar, and minimal vegetable oils, high saturated fats is where most of the benefit will come from, and then ensuring you're not short of any micro nutrients like zinc, vitamin A, vitamin D, etc.

So...Why again is calorie counting "bullshit"?

If you don't know much food you're eating, how are you supposed to lose/gain weight in a smart and controlled way.

You're also painting with really broad strokes. I track calorie intake every day and know exactly how much I need to eat to gain, lose or maintain.

If every fat ass counted their calories, they would be amazed how much they're eating. A lot of people don't realize.

[Basil Ransom]

" If every fat ass counted their calories, they would be amazed how much they're eating. A lot of people don't realize."

A big fat nope. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/nyregi....html?_r=0

Any diet that relies on calorie counting will fail with most people. If you have to calorie count to succeed, you're eating the wrong foods. There are some exceptions like bodybuilders, hardgainers, elite athletes, etc, but I am talking about more average people.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(03-31-2014 12:26 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

" If every fat ass counted their calories, they would be amazed how much they're eating. A lot of people don't realize."

A big fat nope. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/nyregi....html?_r=0

Any diet that relies on calorie counting will fail with most people. If you have to calorie count to succeed, you're eating the wrong foods. There are some exceptions like bodybuilders, hardgainers, elite athletes, etc, but I am talking about more average people.

Well, counting calories doesn't help people lose weight or motivate them to do so, but the fact still remains that they do consume too many calories and need to tone it down, all the while being convinced that they actually "don't eat that much".

[Checkmat]

(03-31-2014 12:26 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

" If every fat ass counted their calories, they would be amazed how much they're eating. A lot of people don't realize."

A big fat nope. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/nyregi....html?_r=0

Any diet that relies on calorie counting will fail with most people. If you have to calorie count to succeed, you're eating the wrong foods. There are some exceptions like bodybuilders, hardgainers, elite athletes, etc, but I am talking about more average people.

Completely different discussion. We're not talking about the efficacy of listing menu calories to make macro-level changes on populations eating habits.

I'm saying, on the individual-level, if I take anybody and have them track their calorie intake, and based on a BMR calculator, they eat in a calorie deficit, they will lose weight.

Whether or not it's fun or considered "normal" to track your calorie intake is something else entirely, and it sounds like you just want to stigmatize it as a weird habit.

I used to think people that tracked calories had OCD or something. Same with people that did that weird "intermittent fasting." No way could I ever do that shit.

Until I did. Of course it was a big lifestyle adjustment at first, but for 3+ years now I've been fasting 18-20 hours every day and tracking my calories. It's not hard. Everyone has a calculator in their pocket everywhere they go. Eat your food, punch in the calories. Lots of people use apps like MyFitnessPal to manage macronutrients too.

[DJ-Matt]

IF + tiny meals works for me. I eat something for breakfast and a tiny bit for lunch then nothing until the next day (and it's an early lunch).

[MikeCF]

I lost 80 pounds doing IF. It was my own version of it (did it before IF blew up).

http://dangerandplay.com/2014/03/11/used...ounds-fat/

[JayMeister]

All this anecdotal "this or that works for me" is a little pointless. For two reasons. The most important one being that any working that it is doing (I assume this means fat loss/muscle growth) could easily be attributable to other factors entirely, which you may not even be aware of. Secondly (and less likely), you may be one of the few responders to a certain approach.

A lot of people usually start a new diet and working out at the same time, then attribute progress to the diet while it is pretty likely exactly the same progress would've been achieved on a normal diet (unless you went from a completely shit diet to a very clean one). The quote "abs are made in the kitchen" is also very false. As long as you have a normal healthy diet* your abs are going to be made in the gym.

*not more than 30g of sugar a day, no fried stuff, not too much stupid food like pasta and potatoes etc is what I consider normal... unfortunately a lot of people consider being obese normal these days so who am I to judge...

That said, I think most studies regarding general meal timing say it doesn't matter. However, there are conflicting studies with regards to meal timing in relation to working out. For example a bigger meal quickly after working out, instead of before or very long after. This may be the only timing that is somewhat effective. (I can't be bothered to look them up atm. You can find them on pubmed).

[MikeCF]

(03-31-2014 04:24 PM)JayMeister Wrote:  

All this anecdotal "this or that works for me" is a little pointless. F

That's what nerds on the Internet who have never personally accomplished anything say in order to interject themselves into a conversation and act like experts.

No, you can't learn about life from PubMed.

To learn about life...You need to live life.

[JayMeister]

(03-31-2014 04:33 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 04:24 PM)JayMeister Wrote:  

All this anecdotal "this or that works for me" is a little pointless. F

That's what nerds on the Internet who have never personally accomplished anything say in order to interject themselves into a conversation and act like experts.

No, you can't learn about life from PubMed.

To learn about life...You need to live life.

Americans

hoorah keep living the dream brother.

[berserk]

(03-31-2014 04:33 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 04:24 PM)JayMeister Wrote:  

All this anecdotal "this or that works for me" is a little pointless. F

That's what nerds on the Internet who have never personally accomplished anything say in order to interject themselves into a conversation and act like experts.

No, you can't learn about life from PubMed.

To learn about life...You need to live life.

I've lost weight now twice using a customized version of IF and low carb. The first time, it was back before IF became really popular when I found "The Warrior Diet" by Ori Hoffmeckler, a great book I would recommend to this day and the second time it was inspired by The 4 Hour Body by Tim Ferris, which I think is a bit of broscience, but the weight loss part is good.

This stuff works, IF + low carb + 45 mins excercise a day and the fat melts off. I did a kg a week for the first 3 weeks, then leveled out more.

[randomweights]

I'm personally an IF advocate having used the diet for 3 years. It's simple and undoubtedly effective. I like it because it facilitates a productive day that minimises the need for ultra strict meal planning (eating every few hours etc) and lugging tupperware dishes around. The health benefits of fasting are studied and too numerous to ignore.

Play with it and see what works for you. Nutrient timing and ingestion of specific macros at certain periods of the day is largely broscience. ....some say you don't need to count calories and macros....well, you don't need a map to find my house either, but it would help to know where you're starting from and where you need to go if you get lost.