Raising your metabolism

Ladyrabc

You have made me chuckle......... and I think you are right,Ive been one of those eat well, exercise well and regularly people and unfortunately over the years have started skipping meals just through time etc, bad excuse I know. However I do think you are right and have been stated to eat little and often for the past month, nothing was happening so joined MFP in order to diarise what I am eating, Once again nothing is still happening and if anything I've put 2Lb on! I will stick with it but if your able to give me any advise I would be very grateful.

Will re read your post later as need to really take it in, thanks for taking the time to explain it really is helpful to us newbies.

Rabc

pwrchrd

Interesting article and findings. I wonder if they also measured the satisfaction or hunger scale of the participants. I know personally that when I distribute my caloric intake across the day I feel less hungry then if I eat a few larger meals.

christy_cross

I didn't want to quote your whole post, so just to 5nak3 when you said this:

"Imagine two diets, one consisting of junk food (crisps / potato chips, chocolate bars and fizzy drinks) and the other consisting of lean proteins and complex carbs (two very extreme examples I know, but bear with me on this). If both have the same calorie count and put the individual below their calorie target for the day, the individual will drop weight.
But which of the two diets is healthier and which of the two will yield a lower body fat % for the individual?"

Interestingly enough, there was a professor who restricted his caloric intake, but ate (i think it was) 70% junk food. Its been dubbed the 'twinkie diet'

Here's a link:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Apparently, he lost 27lbs in 2 months and went from BMI of overweight to healthy (28.8 to 24.9) and his LDL dropped as well. So while most nutritionists don't encourage people to follow suit, they do acknowledge that this experiment reinforces that calories in and out is VERY important in weight loss.

One thing to keep in mind when reading about weight loss and diet is this ---> just because its in a book doesn't make that 'evidence'
Its easy enough to get a book published in the market place (especially if the publisher knows you are a famous person and will sell books, and they don't care what you put in it either). What you might want to look for is a book by an author who has credentials (and not just ancedotal, look at my results credentials because those are for one person's experience), and massive studies published in journals (since these need to be peer reviewed by more than one scientist there are more checks in place to ensure good science was done, though I will admit the odd thing does get published that is total crap in science journals).

Now I know I linked to an article in CNN so I'm being a bit hypocritical but hopefully you get my point (and the twinkie diet was just too fun of an example so I had to link to it).

DrHDLM

What you should do is increase your BMR (Basic Metabolic Rate), you can achieve this by increasing your Muscle mass, bodybuilding. Go for it!

Agglaki

I didn't want to quote your whole post, so just to 5nak3 when you said this:

"Imagine two diets, one consisting of junk food (crisps / potato chips, chocolate bars and fizzy drinks) and the other consisting of lean proteins and complex carbs (two very extreme examples I know, but bear with me on this). If both have the same calorie count and put the individual below their calorie target for the day, the individual will drop weight.
But which of the two diets is healthier and which of the two will yield a lower body fat % for the individual?"

Interestingly enough, there was a professor who restricted his caloric intake, but ate (i think it was) 70% junk food. Its been dubbed the 'twinkie diet'

Here's a link:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Apparently, he lost 27lbs in 2 months and went from BMI of overweight to healthy (28.8 to 24.9) and his LDL dropped as well. So while most nutritionists don't encourage people to follow suit, they do acknowledge that this experiment reinforces that calories in and out is VERY important in weight loss.

One thing to keep in mind when reading about weight loss and diet is this ---> just because its in a book doesn't make that 'evidence'
Its easy enough to get a book published in the market place (especially if the publisher knows you are a famous person and will sell books, and they don't care what you put in it either). What you might want to look for is a book by an author who has credentials (and not just ancedotal, look at my results credentials because those are for one person's experience), and massive studies published in journals (since these need to be peer reviewed by more than one scientist there are more checks in place to ensure good science was done, though I will admit the odd thing does get published that is total crap in science journals).

Now I know I linked to an article in CNN so I'm being a bit hypocritical but hopefully you get my point (and the twinkie diet was just too fun of an example so I had to link to it).

Hiya,

Welcome to the forums!

Yes I'm well aware of the Twinkie diet. In fact that is what spurred me to make that comment about two diets for comparison.

I hadn't read the article you posted, and will do so after I walk the dog. But I have skimmed through it. I've seen no mention of the professors body fat percentage level.

The reliance on BMI as a measure is fundamentally flawed. In fact I'm right at the top of the normal BMI bracket at 24 BMI...Most body builders and athletes are classed as very high normal in some cases even overweight. For reference Usain Bolt depending on what measurements you take ranges from 24.5 - 25.2 on the BMI scale....he is running 100m in less than 10 seconds, I doubt he is overweight.

BMI as a measure fails to take muscle mass into consideration.

In fact from the article, the drop from 28 BMI to 24.9 BMI puts the professor at just under the overweight category...so he still has a lot more Twinkies to eat

Furthermore, as far as I saw in the article there was no mention of the persons LDL prior to the diet...I don't know enough about this subject so I won't delve any further into LDL's and HDL's. Although I will say he did supplement his diet with what seem like some healthy choices such as beans, veg, vitamins and protein shakes. So I think his diet must have had some nutritional element.

There is some truth to the Twinkie diet. If you want to loose weight and you don't care if your muscles are wasting away, all you should look at are calories in and calories out so you will drop weight. I already mentioned that.

That is fine. If you are simply concerned about the weight on the scale.

But I'm talking about body composition and the effect it has on your metabolism. The Twinkie diet will drop your weight, but because your body is malnourished you will waste away your muscle composition. Doing this will slow down your metabolism.

Fat loss is not easy, nor is it a quick process. Subscribing to the Twinkie diet will lead to a huge drop in (mostly muscle) weight and very little else.

Regarding the book publication vs peer journals. I agree with you just because it is written down in a book it doesn't mean that it is true. Peer journals would be a much better reference point. I quoted the book's passage as that is what I had to hand at the time of being asked for "evidence", and also because what is said in the book seems to tie up with what I've seen in many different gyms and what I'm reading on the internet, in magazines, and other books.

My intention wasn't to make it seem as if this one book is the be all and end all of nutrition. There is no such thing in my opinion. The reason behind the quote of the book was to give an idea about meal frequency and the effect on the metabolism and it was somewhat convenient for me to post it at the time.

mapexdrummer69

Body COMPOSITION is determined by macronutrient consumption. Body WEIGHT is determined by energy balance.

registers

Body COMPOSITION is determined by macronutrient consumption. Body WEIGHT is determined by energy balance.

very great post.

mapexdrummer69

Interesting article and findings. I wonder if they also measured the satisfaction or hunger scale of the participants. I know personally that when I distribute my caloric intake across the day I feel less hungry then if I eat a few larger meals.

There have been studies that show that satiety and hunger hormones like ghrelin and GLP-1 will adjust to your eating patterns. When I first started fasting, I would be starving in the morning. Now I don't get "hungry" until around noon, and my large first meal keep me feeling full until my second meal. I'm almost never hungry, and I'm cutting.


Different foods and macronutrients also have an effect on satiety.

rileysowner

If you have issues with the "Twinkie Diet" guy, you really need to watch the documentary "Fat Heads" certainly a very interesting take on this. As for meal timing, it has not metabolic effect and has no effect on fat loss. That is all about energy in versus energy out and the exercise you do. The vast amount of research into this in recent years all points to the truth of that. If 6 meals (or 10 for that matter) a day works for you to control what you eat, great, for me it leaves me completely unsatisfied and more likely to eat extra calories, but don't say things about 6 meals a day that a verifiable untrue base on repeated peer reviewed controlled studies.

mapexdrummer69

If you have issues with the "Twinkie Diet" guy, you really need to watch the documentary "Fat Heads" certainly a very interesting take on this. As for meal timing, it has not metabolic effect and has no effect on fat loss. That is all about energy in versus energy out and the exercise you do. The vast amount of research into this in recent years all points to the truth of that. If 6 meals (or 10 for that matter) a day works for you to control what you eat, great, for me it leaves me completely unsatisfied and more likely to eat extra calories, but don't say things about 6 meals a day that a verifiable untrue base on repeated peer reviewed controlled studies.

You sir are very correct. Meal timing literally comes down to personal preference.

Agglaki

If you have issues with the "Twinkie Diet" guy, you really need to watch the documentary "Fat Heads" certainly a very interesting take on this. As for meal timing, it has not metabolic effect and has no effect on fat loss. That is all about energy in versus energy out and the exercise you do. The vast amount of research into this in recent years all points to the truth of that. If 6 meals (or 10 for that matter) a day works for you to control what you eat, great, for me it leaves me completely unsatisfied and more likely to eat extra calories, but don't say things about 6 meals a day that a verifiable untrue base on repeated peer reviewed controlled studies.

Thanks for the recommendation I'll try to track it down and have a watch.

registers

There have been studies that show that satiety and hunger hormones like ghrelin and GLP-1 will adjust to your eating patterns. When I first started fasting, I would be starving in the morning. Now I don't get "hungry" until around noon, and my large first meal keep me feeling full until my second meal. I'm almost never hungry, and I'm cutting.

Different foods and macronutrients also have an effect on satiety.

It's interesting you say that I am also using an IF method. Yes I agree, you adapt to it eventually, it gets easier. When gherlin is present so is growth hormone. Makes me think that if our gherlin goes down so will our GH. Might mean to get the GH benefit we might need to fast longer periods of time. Or maybe the gherlin is still there, but we just have adapted to it, and it doesn't bother us anymore, if this is true, GH will still be there either way.