zmusic wrote: » DemoraFairy wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » DemoraFairy wrote: » healthygreek wrote: » How did I lose all the weight eating a small breakfast and one huge meal a day? I must be special. Well, to be fair to the OP, they're not saying that not eating every 3 to 4 hours means you can't lose weight, just that it makes weight loss quicker/easier. Not saying I agree with the OP at all, just that eating your calories in bigger meals and losing weight isn't enough to disprove the point. I think OP is also arguing that five to six meals boosts metabolism over just eating one meal or three meals, which is blatantly false. Yeah, I wasn't trying to say that the OP was arguing anything else. 'Boosts metabolism' = 'makes weight loss quicker/easier'. The OP is saying you'll burn more calories in the day if you eat more regularly, but they're not saying you can't lose weight if you don't eat regularly. I merely posted articles that present ways to boost metabolism. There have been no posting of scientific proof contrary to the articles that I posted. One method may be a small boost, but small boosts add up to big boosts in metabolism.
DemoraFairy wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » DemoraFairy wrote: » healthygreek wrote: » How did I lose all the weight eating a small breakfast and one huge meal a day? I must be special. Well, to be fair to the OP, they're not saying that not eating every 3 to 4 hours means you can't lose weight, just that it makes weight loss quicker/easier. Not saying I agree with the OP at all, just that eating your calories in bigger meals and losing weight isn't enough to disprove the point. I think OP is also arguing that five to six meals boosts metabolism over just eating one meal or three meals, which is blatantly false. Yeah, I wasn't trying to say that the OP was arguing anything else. 'Boosts metabolism' = 'makes weight loss quicker/easier'. The OP is saying you'll burn more calories in the day if you eat more regularly, but they're not saying you can't lose weight if you don't eat regularly.
ndj1979 wrote: » DemoraFairy wrote: » healthygreek wrote: » How did I lose all the weight eating a small breakfast and one huge meal a day? I must be special. Well, to be fair to the OP, they're not saying that not eating every 3 to 4 hours means you can't lose weight, just that it makes weight loss quicker/easier. Not saying I agree with the OP at all, just that eating your calories in bigger meals and losing weight isn't enough to disprove the point. I think OP is also arguing that five to six meals boosts metabolism over just eating one meal or three meals, which is blatantly false.
DemoraFairy wrote: » healthygreek wrote: » How did I lose all the weight eating a small breakfast and one huge meal a day? I must be special. Well, to be fair to the OP, they're not saying that not eating every 3 to 4 hours means you can't lose weight, just that it makes weight loss quicker/easier. Not saying I agree with the OP at all, just that eating your calories in bigger meals and losing weight isn't enough to disprove the point.
healthygreek wrote: » How did I lose all the weight eating a small breakfast and one huge meal a day? I must be special.
zmusic wrote: » DemoraFairy wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » DemoraFairy wrote: » healthygreek wrote: » How did I lose all the weight eating a small breakfast and one huge meal a day? I must be special. Well, to be fair to the OP, they're not saying that not eating every 3 to 4 hours means you can't lose weight, just that it makes weight loss quicker/easier. Not saying I agree with the OP at all, just that eating your calories in bigger meals and losing weight isn't enough to disprove the point. I think OP is also arguing that five to six meals boosts metabolism over just eating one meal or three meals, which is blatantly false. Yeah, I wasn't trying to say that the OP was arguing anything else. 'Boosts metabolism' = 'makes weight loss quicker/easier'. The OP is saying you'll burn more calories in the day if you eat more regularly, but they're not saying you can't lose weight if you don't eat regularly. I merely posted articles that present ways to boost metabolism. There have been no posting of scientific proof contrary to the articles that I posted.
EvgeniZyntx wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » EvgeniZyntx wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » Ummm no...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Thermogenesis+in+humans+after+varying+meal+time+frequency Ann Nutr Metab. 1987;31(2):88-97. [Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency]. [Article in German] Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Müller HL, Hollomey S. Abstract To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance. OP - why do you always do this? You get called out in one thread and then start another ridiculous thread... Umm, that's terrible evidence. A nonstat. significant result doesn't necessarily mean no change occurs just that none was found. And given a n=8 and a study period of 2 weeks, it could be methodological. Now while I agree that meal freq isn't that important, this isn't the study proving that. The study that shows meal freq has impact shows a minor change. That's what is important. If it's a lot of effort to change habits for little result focus your energy elsewhere. I am at work, so that is the only one I had handy. I will take it over WebMD any day of the week.. Are you agreeing with OP's premise??? If the OPs premise is that a) we should listen webmd unequivocally or b ) that meal frequency is important. NO, I don't agree (see the bold, above). Meal freq can have an influence in the lean individual, but it's really a minor element in weight loss. It's next to useless as a factor in weightloss compared to other variables like calorie management and activity. I think you are right in your critique, it's the article as evidence that I'm reserved on.
ndj1979 wrote: » EvgeniZyntx wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » Ummm no...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Thermogenesis+in+humans+after+varying+meal+time+frequency Ann Nutr Metab. 1987;31(2):88-97. [Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency]. [Article in German] Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Müller HL, Hollomey S. Abstract To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance. OP - why do you always do this? You get called out in one thread and then start another ridiculous thread... Umm, that's terrible evidence. A nonstat. significant result doesn't necessarily mean no change occurs just that none was found. And given a n=8 and a study period of 2 weeks, it could be methodological. Now while I agree that meal freq isn't that important, this isn't the study proving that. The study that shows meal freq has impact shows a minor change. That's what is important. If it's a lot of effort to change habits for little result focus your energy elsewhere. I am at work, so that is the only one I had handy. I will take it over WebMD any day of the week.. Are you agreeing with OP's premise???
EvgeniZyntx wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » Ummm no...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Thermogenesis+in+humans+after+varying+meal+time+frequency Ann Nutr Metab. 1987;31(2):88-97. [Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency]. [Article in German] Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Müller HL, Hollomey S. Abstract To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance. OP - why do you always do this? You get called out in one thread and then start another ridiculous thread... Umm, that's terrible evidence. A nonstat. significant result doesn't necessarily mean no change occurs just that none was found. And given a n=8 and a study period of 2 weeks, it could be methodological. Now while I agree that meal freq isn't that important, this isn't the study proving that. The study that shows meal freq has impact shows a minor change. That's what is important. If it's a lot of effort to change habits for little result focus your energy elsewhere.
ndj1979 wrote: » Ummm no...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Thermogenesis+in+humans+after+varying+meal+time+frequency Ann Nutr Metab. 1987;31(2):88-97. [Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency]. [Article in German] Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Müller HL, Hollomey S. Abstract To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance. OP - why do you always do this? You get called out in one thread and then start another ridiculous thread...
DemoraFairy wrote: » zmusic wrote: » DemoraFairy wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » DemoraFairy wrote: » healthygreek wrote: » How did I lose all the weight eating a small breakfast and one huge meal a day? I must be special. Well, to be fair to the OP, they're not saying that not eating every 3 to 4 hours means you can't lose weight, just that it makes weight loss quicker/easier. Not saying I agree with the OP at all, just that eating your calories in bigger meals and losing weight isn't enough to disprove the point. I think OP is also arguing that five to six meals boosts metabolism over just eating one meal or three meals, which is blatantly false. Yeah, I wasn't trying to say that the OP was arguing anything else. 'Boosts metabolism' = 'makes weight loss quicker/easier'. The OP is saying you'll burn more calories in the day if you eat more regularly, but they're not saying you can't lose weight if you don't eat regularly. I merely posted articles that present ways to boost metabolism. There have been no posting of scientific proof contrary to the articles that I posted. Yes there has, @jessupbrady posted a link to a study showing that meal frequency didn't affect weight loss. How reliable that study is has been up for debate, but it is a scientific study that contradicts the idea that eating more frequent meals increases metabolism. It's also worth nothing that jessupbrady asked you what studies you were referring to in your OP since neither of the articles linked to scientific studies, yet you haven't posted any yet.
TimothyFish wrote: » Whether it boosts their metabolism or not, most people do have a snack between meals. I've never noticed a significant difference in weight loss from when I did and when I didn't. The thing that boosts metabolism the most is exercise. You burn more calories and you metabolize more food. Funny how that works.
