Been preaching the multiple meal theory is bullshit for years.
Myth 10: Eating small meals throughout the day stokes your metabolic fire
It’s easy to trace this myth back to its origin. Digesting a meal does raise your metabolism by a little bit, but the only way to sustain this elevated rate is to eat more food.
Total energy use comes from the amount of food you eat. Evidence shows the number of meals largely makes nodifference.
In fact, some studies suggest having smaller meals more often makes it harder to feel full, potentially leading to increased food intake.
Pretty sure small and frequent meal has been debunked a long time ago and for the most part only caloric intake matters. I think eating smaller meals could be better for your organs and longevity but that has nothing to do with losing weight.
The source of many fitness/nutrition problems is that much of the bull shit has been produced by Bodybuilders and your average fitness trainer has passed those stuff down the line. Before you know it everyone is an expert without much credibility . Also people cannot pass on the methods that has worked for them as science or advice to others. The 6 meal a day was popularized by bodybuilders and so is many of the useless bro science like the calories intake .
I’d like to stick to 2500 calorie diet of soda and Oreo Cookies for two weeks and compare my results with the same amount of calories but from steak and vegetables. People get fat due to insulin response and hormones gowing up and down , not because of excess calories.
The problem is you need to clone yourself at birth, then do three decades on those two diets with your clone, and let calories be an output you don’t attempt to manage. Certainly your clone eating oreo cookies becomes fatter…how do we know?
Because we know what has happened, for 100yrs, all over the world, every single time those industrial foods crowed out native foods, the population got fatter. 100% every time in hundreds/thousands of trials. But “science” wants to nail that down in some short-term study, which doesn’t work very well.
Fat maybe works like some sort of weird 30yr upward ratcheting bond. Eating certainfoods ratchets up your fat level over the decades, requiring larger calories to sustain that new level, and nature will not allow it to move down…only move up to some higher fat level. That would explain all the observations.
Almost doesn’t matter what you eat, and I am qualifying with “almost” because synthetic foods like trans-fats or propylene glycol are probably no good in any quantity. Other than that, eat what you want. Not severely restricting calories, but eating in moderation.
Much like last time we (most of WC, not you and me) discussed this it came down to: A) for pure weight loss, counting calories does work because it’s basic science; and B) there’s a separate debate as to the most healthy way to lose weight. There are particular diets that can have significant long-term health benefits, but that’s beyond the scope of just losing weight (which in itself has huge health benefits).
Operating at a calorie deficit sheds lbs. I can back that up. You can’t back up that it doesn’t. Much like everything else, you lack any credible support for your position.
Where is the source for the pop culture belief in “calories in calories out”? The 100yr old discovery of that food contains measurable energy when burnt in an oven? The “law of thermodynamics”? LOL, that’s mechanical, and still doesn’t prove anything even if it applies. Animals are biology.
Science does not understand that biology, therefore you can not cite science.
There are other variables as well. What’s your starting weight/% of body fat, are we talking about just losing weight or losing body fat, how much do you want to lose, and, yes, timeframe.
I would agree that if you’re at 12% body fat looking to go to 8% then just counting calories (or using weight as a metric for success at all) isn’t the right way to go. In fact, you needn’t worry about calories (yes, in this scenario I’ll concede to PA). You can go Atkins/Paleo/whatever high fat/protein and low carb diet you want to get the desired results (while continuing to workout).
But, much more typically, I think the average person looking to lose weight is trying to shed those extra 20 lbs they accumulated over the winter season (or whatever). For them, a lifestyle change (cutting out sugar and carbs completely) isn’t necessarily a sustainable diet. It’s much easier to eat 500 calories a day less than your BMR and get the desired results. Once you’re down to your goal weight, you can either decide to maintain a balanced diet while watching your calories (don’t eat pizza and pasta while drinking 18 beers a night everyday) and stay around your goal weight, or you could add another layer of intensity to your diet and go the low carb route while adding lean muscle through various exercise programs.
Doing everything at once (drastically changing your diet, reducing calories, and starting a new workout program) is setting yourself up for failure. That’s way most shed first, then bulk up.
Man you are so full of yourself it’s hard to believe. Here is, literally, the first thing that pops up on google. Not to mention, I’ve done it and tracked the results (as I believe Higgs has as well).
So, this is what it looks like to cite a source. I’m sure you’ll come back with something about how this source is BS instead of finding anything that backs up your claim.
