Misinformation.

Acg67

Let's look at meal frequency, which would fall into the personal preference category. Does meal frequency matter?

It might matter for behavioral reasons and it might matter for performance reasons and if it leads to better gym performance it could minimally effect expenditure. But it DOES NOT effect metabolism

So if I should have 2400 calories per day, I could just eat 16800 calories on Monday mornings and skip eating the other 6 days? Is that how metabolism works? What is the minimum frequency for meals? I don't want to read misinformation, and you're the expert on it, so please clear this up for me.

::Sigh::

Ever hear of excluding the middle?

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html

Contrarian

Let's look at meal frequency, which would fall into the personal preference category. Does meal frequency matter?

It might matter for behavioral reasons and it might matter for performance reasons and if it leads to better gym performance it could minimally effect expenditure. But it DOES NOT effect metabolism

So if I should have 2400 calories per day, I could just eat 16800 calories on Monday mornings and skip eating the other 6 days? Is that how metabolism works? What is the minimum frequency for meals? I don't want to read misinformation, and you're the expert on it, so please clear this up for me.

There is always at least one.

BrienJD

Good post OP. There is a problem with having TOO much information, and information that usually contradicts itself. No wonder so many people have a ****ens of a time trying to sort through the mess, making a plan and being able to stick with it without having to second guess themselves by what they read every step of the way. This isn't easy to begin with.

Helloitsdan

I'd like to talk about something.

Often times on the forums, we'll see someone post what looks like a helpful post full of dieting information. If the information is faulty, some people will reply with the intent to correct it in the hopes that too many people don't buy into the bad information.

Then a bunch of people will get upset with the guy or gal who is trying to correct the person, saying "Stop hating" or "Stop being so negative!". (Sometimes people do post rude replies but it seems like any disagreement is arbitrarily viewed as negative as of late).

Misinformation is bad.

I will give you a few examples to attempt to explain why:

Let's look at meal frequency, which would fall into the personal preference category. Does meal frequency matter?

It might matter for behavioral reasons and it might matter for performance reasons and if it leads to better gym performance it could minimally effect expenditure. But it DOES NOT effect metabolism and if someone says this gem:

"It's very important to eat every 3 hours so that your metabolism keeps burning. If you skip a meal your metabolism will slow down and your body will actually STORE FAT. So please make sure to eat every 3 hours". (<--- this claim is entirely false)

...this is problematic because people who DON'T currently eat frequently might think "Crap, I'm doing it wrong. I'm going to have to fix this". Now they're going to reschedule what could be an eating pattern that works very well for them based on the bad information that increasing their frequency will increase metabolic rate. Additionally, they'll have to eat smaller meals (because they would obviously keep kcals/macros constant) which would probably have a negative effect on adherence/satiety.

Is eating frequently arbitrarily bad? No. It's personal preference. But convincing someone that it's metabolically relevant is BAD, because this convinces them that they must follow this advice.

Lets look at a different example from a recent thread:

"You shouldn't combine carbs and fats in the same meal because it will cause your body to store fat!"

This was recently posted in a topic and not only is it completely bogus and not supported by anything, but the end result was (literally) that someone replied with:

"Thanks so much for this, I'm going to stop eating PB+J sandwiches".

So someone comes on here and posts something completely false and out of fear, another person eliminates something they enjoy from their diet. Now, for all we know someone else is reading that post and not replying, because they're in the kitchen stressed out over how they're going to re-arrange every meal in their day so that the carb sources aren't ever eaten with fat.


This is not a good thing.

There's a very small list of things that are necessary to lose weight.
There's a very large list of things that are personal preference for losing weight. (In this list I include medical reasons, moral reasons, individual intolerances).


Both of these are important, but focus on the necessities first and customize the personal preference aspects to give you the best adherence or most enjoyment possible out of your journey.


And don't confuse the two for yourself or others.

/end rant.

You better watch it mister!!! This is great info!


I'm serious!


"I'm the boss! Need the info!!!!

littlepinkhearts

Awesome post!!:drinker:

Lary_babe

A lot of fitness junk is pretty grey-area. You'll see people argue til they're blue in the face (blue in the monitor???) and post articles/facts/studies supporting both sides.

I usually trust the advice of whoever is sexier.

Never steers me wrong.

bahhahaha THIS.

tigersword

"As long as muscle and liver glycogen stores are not completely filled, the body is able to store or burn off excess dietary carbohydrates. Of course this process occurs at the expense of limiting fat burning, meaning that any dietary fat which is
ingested with a high carbohydrate intake is stored as fat."-Lyle Mcdonald (page 22 out of The Ketogenic diet).

This would matter if dietary fat was actually the primary energy source for the body, but it isn't. Carbs are. Fat may get stored, but not likely, as most dietary fat is broken down into component fatty acids for hormone synthesis and other biological processes, as long as there are sufficient carbs consumed for energy purposes. Dietary fat and adipose fat are not the same thing.

As for the original post. *slow clap* Very well said, I'm in 100% agreement.

Helloitsdan

I see a lot of people with "1" forum post regurgitating stuff on here all the time!
Makes me think of this!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wordSalad+Shooter

jbholla

good rant

tigersword

Oh yeah, and I just want to add, 54 pounds down, and I've eaten a PB&J for lunch just about every day.

Sidesteal

Oh yeah, and I just want to add, 54 pounds down, and I've eaten a PB&J for lunch just about every day.

Nice work man!

I am planning on waffles tonight, but if Pb+J fits the macros after that, I will have one in your honor sir.


(And I will yell "come at me insulin fairy" as I eat them).

Helloitsdan

in bed i'll top the day off with Honey nut cheerios and Raisin Bran Crunch with almond milk.

Broke a plateau by doing that last year!

myak623

Let's look at meal frequency, which would fall into the personal preference category. Does meal frequency matter?

It might matter for behavioral reasons and it might matter for performance reasons and if it leads to better gym performance it could minimally effect expenditure. But it DOES NOT effect metabolism

So if I should have 2400 calories per day, I could just eat 16800 calories on Monday mornings and skip eating the other 6 days? Is that how metabolism works? What is the minimum frequency for meals? I don't want to read misinformation, and you're the expert on it, so please clear this up for me.

jam05down

Thanks for this awesome post. Speaking as a physician, in my opinion, you are completely correct (I realize that being a physician does not mean that I have the final word on dieting, but we did study this stuff in school). For what it is worth, I take a very simple approach. I simply try to take in fewer calories than I need for weight maintenance, through a combination of exercise and watching my caloric intake. It is working great--I have lost about 10 pounds in a month without ever feeling like I was ever really sacrificing anything. In an effort to try to be sure that I am really taking in fewer calories than I burn, when in doubt I will underestimate calories burned by exercise. If I eat something that does not have clear information regarding calories, I will look at similar foods on the site and pick one in the high end of the range. For example, if I eat some hash browns, I will look at the various entries for this food and pick one that is in the top, say, 25% for caloric value.

This is also working well from the perspective of my overall sense of well-being. I am currently training for a 26 kilometer cross country ski race. I did a 25 kilometer training session today and felt great at the end of it.

Anyway, thanks again for the post. I do think that some folks do make this more complicated than it needs to be. I recognize that my approach may not work well for everyone, but for what it is worth, it is working for me and I believe that it would work well for many people.

theoriginaljayne

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Chloe_Chaos_

Like a few people have said, people can argue forever about science and articles that they read or what Dr Oz told them to do (I have noticed, perhaps its obvious to everyone by now that his weight loss tips usually end like this "take this then exercise and diet and you will lose weight" hmmm). But it all comes down to whatever works for them. I am interested in what other people are doing in case I get stuck I can shake things up and try something new, if their way doesn't work I go back to the way I was. I'm fortunate to have access to my university's library full of any kind of article imaginable so if I'm lost about something I'll google it, if it sounds fishy I go look up the science from *gasp* real scientists!

Thanks for the thread. Hope people don't take too much to heart when people start telling them when to eat. :ohwell:

mdebbie1026

bump

Helloitsdan

So if I should have 2400 calories per day, I could just eat 16800 calories on Monday mornings and skip eating the other 6 days? Is that how metabolism works? What is the minimum frequency for meals? I don't want to read misinformation, and you're the expert on it, so please clear this up for me.

BaconMD

Let's look at meal frequency, which would fall into the personal preference category. Does meal frequency matter?

It might matter for behavioral reasons and it might matter for performance reasons and if it leads to better gym performance it could minimally effect expenditure. But it DOES NOT effect metabolism

So if I should have 2400 calories per day, I could just eat 16800 calories on Monday mornings and skip eating the other 6 days? Is that how metabolism works? What is the minimum frequency for meals? I don't want to read misinformation, and you're the expert on it, so please clear this up for me.

::Sigh::

Ever hear of excluding the middle?

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html

I'm not arguing against what the OP wrote, I'm asking a question. We are trying to clear everything up here, right? So what's the answer? If you can eat ten times a day or just once a day and your metabolism is fine either way, why can't you eat just once every two days? Or once a week, as in my extreme example? What's the difference?

tigersword

Your metabolism starts slowing down after about 72 hours of complete fasting. Millions of people actually do eat every other day, and live just fine.