Distribution of macros throughout the day...

Options
24

Replies

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    simple,

    more energy, basic easy to manage prepare and shop for diet, and i can retain muscle whilst doing it -

    Not sure why you asked the question. Those would definitely not be the case for me.

    Low carb is not any better for body composition than moderate carbs long term assuming protein is kept constant.
  • CookyBell
    CookyBell Posts: 22
    Options
    Please cite studies that show, under calorie control, meal timing has any impact on body composition.

    You may see this as a cop out but: I would need time to go back through all the reading I have done and cite specific example studies that use individuals of similar lifestyle, build and goals to myself. A lot of studies that people refer to use groups of overweight/obese individuals, people that are in specific age brackets (pre-teen seem to be a favourite), sedentary persons etc. For any study to be relevant it needs to undertaken by totally unbiased researcher/s and relevant to the target audience. The articles/studies are out there please feel free to Google

    I have also read studies that show results do not vary between groups when one eats up tp 6 meals per day and the other eats 3. Same calorie, macro-nutrient content regardless of meal timing. Again you need to look at the subjects used in the studies and see if these subjects are relevant to you.
    Here is a link, that includes studies, that show it is not

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/820577-meal-frequency-rev-up-that-furnace-lol

    I have seen this post before and a lot of what is written has no reference to credible studies (maybe its me not looking hard enough);; only links to other articles and a persons 'logical' conclusions based on their interpretation of the studies they've read.
    Also your body is in a constant state of catabolism and anabolism - you cannot just look at the net balance of a small window of time.

    I agree totally with you on that statement; although at times your body may be in a state of equilibrium. I would have thought that the optimum objective would be to ensure that the body is in a positive anabolic state whenever possible?
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Please cite studies that show, under calorie control, meal timing has any impact on body composition.

    You may see this as a cop out but: I would need time to go back through all the reading I have done and cite specific example studies that use individuals of similar lifestyle, build and goals to myself. A lot of studies that people refer to use groups of overweight/obese individuals, people that are in specific age brackets (pre-teen seem to be a favourite), sedentary persons etc. For any study to be relevant it needs to undertaken by totally unbiased researcher/s and relevant to the target audience. The articles/studies are out there please feel free to Google

    I have also read studies that show results do not vary between groups when one eats up tp 6 meals per day and the other eats 3. Same calorie, macro-nutrient content regardless of meal timing. Again you need to look at the subjects used in the studies and see if these subjects are relevant to you.
    Here is a link, that includes studies, that show it is not

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/820577-meal-frequency-rev-up-that-furnace-lol

    I have seen this post before and a lot of what is written has no reference to credible studies (maybe its me not looking hard enough);; only links to other articles and a persons 'logical' conclusions based on their interpretation of the studies they've read.
    Also your body is in a constant state of catabolism and anabolism - you cannot just look at the net balance of a small window of time.

    I agree totally with you on that statement; although at times your body may be in a state of equilibrium. I would have thought that the optimum objective would be to ensure that the body is in a positive anabolic state whenever possible?

    Reread the link - you will find studies so I am not sure where you are getting that from

    Here are a couple that you appear to have overlooked:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007

    They are cited in the link - plus the other articles in that link also have studies noted.

    I provided a link to studies that show it makes no difference..I have yet to find anything compelling that shows otherwise (although there is some interesting studies that indicate more carbs at night may be beneficial). If you actually have anything, please feel free to link.

    You cannot look at the body at the a point in without regard to what is happening for the whole day.
  • mrdexter1
    mrdexter1 Posts: 356 Member
    Options
    simple,

    more energy, basic easy to manage prepare and shop for diet, and i can retain muscle whilst doing it -

    Low carb is not any better for body composition than moderate carbs long term assuming protein is kept constant.

    eat moderate carbs and you defeat the object of the exercise....ketosis
  • sullus
    sullus Posts: 2,839 Member
    Options
    big breakfast good. it fuels you for the day and kick starts your metabolism! i would def ban cabs 4 hrs before bed, i even try to not eat at all within that 4 hr window. the only carbs i would eat would be that pesky late night square of chocolate, or the carrots i have with dinner if i have an early night,.

    This is incorrect. Your metabolism runs appx 15% faster during the first 48 hours of fasting.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837292
  • shining_light
    shining_light Posts: 384 Member
    Options
    My basic rules are: 1) listen to your body and figure out when it says it needs fuel, then feed it, and 2) always have a fat and a protein at every meal. Like, for example, if I'm having chicken breast, I'll typically add olive oil or cheese to it for balance. I eat low carb because grain products tend to make me sluggish and bloated. Milk too.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    simple,

    more energy, basic easy to manage prepare and shop for diet, and i can retain muscle whilst doing it -

    Low carb is not any better for body composition than moderate carbs long term assuming protein is kept constant.

    eat moderate carbs and you defeat the object of the exercise....ketosis

    Lol - I realize that.
  • CookyBell
    CookyBell Posts: 22
    Options
    Here are a couple that you appear to have overlooked:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007

    If you read into these articles you will find that in all instances the subject groups were 'obese' and based on this my question to you is:

    Can studies on obese individuals have any correlation to athletic individuals living a healthy and energetic lifestyle? Surely if I wanted to understand the potential impact of MF on myself I would need to find studies that used subjects similar to myself and living a similar lifestyle?

    I appreciate the sentiment of 'do what works for you' and over the years of my life I have tried numerous approaches to diet etc and I find (here we go with the hearsay bit again) that adapting a grazing lifestyle around my physical activity helps me to achieve the best results.
    You cannot look at the body at the a point in without regard to what is happening for the whole day.

    Totally agree with this statement; don't know why you had to restate it?
  • jessetmia
    jessetmia Posts: 19
    Options
    simple,

    more energy, basic easy to manage prepare and shop for diet, and i can retain muscle whilst doing it -

    Not sure why you asked the question. Those would definitely not be the case for me.

    Low carb is not any better for body composition than moderate carbs long term assuming protein is kept constant.

    Not that I'm an expert or anything, having low glycogen stores before jumping on a treadmill or going for a light "cardio" workout, you would definitely benefit from the lack of carbs, as your body will move to it's fat stores. /broscience

    edit by carbs, I'm referring to that and glycogen stores. That's why it's such a good idea to run when you first wake up, etc.
  • mrdexter1
    mrdexter1 Posts: 356 Member
    Options
    simple,

    more energy, basic easy to manage prepare and shop for diet, and i can retain muscle whilst doing it -

    Low carb is not any better for body composition than moderate carbs long term assuming protein is kept constant.

    eat moderate carbs and you defeat the object of the exercise....ketosis

    Lol - I realize that.

    Oh !! iget it now , you were just playing !!
  • CookyBell
    CookyBell Posts: 22
    Options
    Here are a couple that you appear to have overlooked:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007

    If you read into these articles you will find that in all instances the subject groups were 'obese' and based on this my question to you is:

    Can studies on obese individuals have any correlation to athletic individuals living a healthy and energetic lifestyle? Surely if I wanted to understand the potential impact of MF on myself I would need to find studies that used subjects similar to myself and living a similar lifestyle?

    I appreciate the sentiment of 'do what works for you' and over the years of my life I have tried numerous approaches to diet etc and I find (here we go with the hearsay bit again) that adapting a grazing lifestyle around my physical activity helps me to achieve the best results.
    You cannot look at the body at the a point in without regard to what is happening for the whole day.

    Totally agree with this statement; don't know why you had to restate it?

    Also as a point to note is that the above studies used obese individuals as their subject groups and doesn't indicate whether the subjects were sedentary or active. So assuming, and one should never assume, they were sedentary obese individuals; how could the results be relevant to individuals that are active and living a healthy lifestyle?

    To me these studies were used to support the views of the individuals that wrote the articles and thus the articles are written with a certain amount of bias and are not relevant to individuals that do not fall within the tested subject groups.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    simple,

    more energy, basic easy to manage prepare and shop for diet, and i can retain muscle whilst doing it -

    Low carb is not any better for body composition than moderate carbs long term assuming protein is kept constant.

    eat moderate carbs and you defeat the object of the exercise....ketosis

    Lol - I realize that.

    Oh !! iget it now , you were just playing !!


    Errr..no.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    simple,

    more energy, basic easy to manage prepare and shop for diet, and i can retain muscle whilst doing it -

    Not sure why you asked the question. Those would definitely not be the case for me.

    Low carb is not any better for body composition than moderate carbs long term assuming protein is kept constant.

    Not that I'm an expert or anything, having low glycogen stores before jumping on a treadmill or going for a light "cardio" workout, you would definitely benefit from the lack of carbs, as your body will move to it's fat stores. /broscience

    edit by carbs, I'm referring to that and glycogen stores. That's why it's such a good idea to run when you first wake up, etc.

    Low glycogen stores =/= no glycogen store.

    Also, that really depends on how well you work our fasted. People get very caught up in micromanaging their meal intake, but at the end of the day, the biggest impact on your weight loss is adherence, energy levels and gym performance.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Here are a couple that you appear to have overlooked:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007

    If you read into these articles you will find that in all instances the subject groups were 'obese' and based on this my question to you is:

    Can studies on obese individuals have any correlation to athletic individuals living a healthy and energetic lifestyle? Surely if I wanted to understand the potential impact of MF on myself I would need to find studies that used subjects similar to myself and living a similar lifestyle?

    I appreciate the sentiment of 'do what works for you' and over the years of my life I have tried numerous approaches to diet etc and I find (here we go with the hearsay bit again) that adapting a grazing lifestyle around my physical activity helps me to achieve the best results.
    You cannot look at the body at the a point in without regard to what is happening for the whole day.

    Totally agree with this statement; don't know why you had to restate it?

    Because you seemed to be arguing against that statement with your comments.

    Re the studies - yes I have read them. What leads you to believe that the premise if false for lean individuals? Do you have anything that would indicate otherwise?

    You made the comment that there were no studies linked - there were. You have yet to cite your references.
  • CookyBell
    CookyBell Posts: 22
    Options
    Here are a couple that you appear to have overlooked:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007

    Re the studies - yes I have read them. What leads you to believe that the premise if false for lean individuals? Do you have anything that would indicate otherwise?

    When reading clinical study reports there are a number of pointers one should be aware of:

    1: Who sponsored the study?
    2: Did the researchers have any potential bias going into the study?
    3: Is the study ground breaking or is the objective to confirm/deny the results of a previous study?
    4: Read 3 then read 1 and 2 again
    5: What is my own personal bias when reading the study?

    All the above can have an impact on study results, publications and summaries with conclusions.

    That aside we then move onto the subject groups. Research companies do like to use target subject groups for a reason; they are trying to find out the how XYZ may potentially affect a certain cross section of the population. To assume that the results found in an obese and sedentary subject group/s would crossover to a segment of the population that is lean, athletic with efficient metabolisms is bad science.

    You're one that is assuming studies on obese, sedentary individuals in a controlled environment apply to a greater portion of the population (not under controlled conditions); so I ask you what empirical evidence do you have that supports this argument?
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Here are a couple that you appear to have overlooked:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007

    Re the studies - yes I have read them. What leads you to believe that the premise if false for lean individuals? Do you have anything that would indicate otherwise?

    When reading clinical study reports there are a number of pointers one should be aware of:

    1: Who sponsored the study?
    2: Did the researchers have any potential bias going into the study?
    3: Is the study ground breaking or is the objective to confirm/deny the results of a previous study?
    4: Read 3 then read 1 and 2 again
    5: What is my own personal bias when reading the study?

    All the above can have an impact on study results, publications and summaries with conclusions.

    That aside we then move onto the subject groups. Research companies do like to use target subject groups for a reason; they are trying to find out the how XYZ may potentially affect a certain cross section of the population. To assume that the results found in an obese and sedentary subject group/s would crossover to a segment of the population that is lean, athletic with efficient metabolisms is bad science.

    You're one that is assuming studies on obese, sedentary individuals in a controlled environment apply to a greater portion of the population (not under controlled conditions); so I ask you what empirical evidence do you have that supports this argument?



    So, on reading the studies, what conclusions did you come to pertaining to your points 1 through 5?

    Again, please could you cite your sources for the assertion you made.

    I do understand that peer reviewed studies need to be looked at in context. However, I would suggest that you look at the rest of the thread that I linked. There are reviews of studies by highly respected and credentialed individuals in the industry - not just some random internet people - they link numerous studies. There is nothing to indicate that the assertions are incorrect, and you have yet to provide a single source of reference in any situation for your assertions.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    Meal timing is not important. It never has been and never will be proved to be.

    I'd have to disagree with this. The majority of studies I have read have highlighted the need to replace expended energy and assist with recovery after exercise all help to reduce muscle catabolism. Catabolism, as Im sure you are aware is the breaking down of large molecules into smaller ones; an energy replacement process. If you do a workout your body enters into a state of catabilsm and therefore needs fuel to alter this biochemical process. Therefore meal timing after a workout is important. Likewise timing a meal prior to a workout, in order to ensure that you have sufficient energy reserves to meet the demands about to be placed on your body is also important.
    Eating breakfast first thing in the morning is not important..

    Again I would have to disagree with this statement. Numerous studies have proven that individuals that eat a proper nutritionally balanced breakfast benefit from this, with regards to restocking glycogen levels etc after 8 - 12 hours of fasting,, and that unhealthy 'snacking' is less likely to occur. It also helps to get the body into a proper nitrogen fuelled state. I suppose you could argue that the statement 'first thing in the morning' is open to discussion with regards to what is the correct window of opportunity.

    .
    This thread should have ended after this post...
    Distribute your meals and you macros how you want based on preference, satiation, lifestyle and energy levels.

    I agree somewhat with this statement however (and there's always an however) its not always easy to listen to your body due to hectic lifestyles and depending upon how interpret it this statement also agrees with my posts. After all lifestyle and energy levels etc will be impacted by sleepi, working, training plans/intensity etc and establishing a meal/macro plan can help to instil discipline and make it easier to achieve goals.

    Regarding anabolism/catabolism and meal frequency, i would think that you would have to show research indicating that a relevant population given adequate protein intake for the day under different protein distributions per meal, resulted in a different net gain or loss of skeletal muscle over time. Then we would want to consider context to see how relevant it really is.

    I'm not in the least bit concerned over micromanaging acute states/phases of anabolism/catabolism because given any sort of real world scenario where an individual is eating 2-5 mixed meals, I really don't believe you're going to see a big difference in net change in lbm. If you're eating the appropriate total intake of protein to support lbm needs, getting it in 2 large doses vs 5 moderate doses won't likely have a huge impact since larger doses will have longer durations of anticatabolism.

    I'm not convinced that acute shifts matter. What matters is the net difference between muscle protein synthesis and muscle protein breakdown. And nitrogen balance isn't necessarily a good proxy for this because protein turnover happens in non skeletal muscle.

    Regarding breakfast and glycogen: as long as you have enough glycogen to meet training demands you're golden. Many people can train like a beast in a fasted state.


    Edit: replying from a cell phone while on Benadryl. Please excuse any incoherence :)
  • CookyBell
    CookyBell Posts: 22
    Options
    So, on reading the studies, what conclusions did you come to pertaining to your points 1 through 5?

    Without going into a deeper reading of the studies and knowing/understanding the sponsors, researchers and authors I am not in a position to discuss their motives. However as with all things to do with research one has to try and read the findings objectively. And, as a lot of abstracts do they are not always very definitive in their summary and use terms such as:

    'are likely to be' - ' does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study'

    and the last one where the hypocaloric meal was administered to 3 groups of obese test groups in reading the conclusion all groups had changes in weight, body composition, resting metabolic rate, and nitrogen balance. So in theory either approach to dieting will have the desired effect. However when I refer to MF it is in relation to active individuals that require a constant flow of energy to exercise and physical demands not obese sedentary individuals; so I'm still not convinced.

    I know that a nutritional/dietary plan consisting of 5-6 meals per day built around my daily activities work for me with regards to weight management, energy expenditure and recovery. I suppose you could say that is my bias.
    Again, please could you cite your sources for the assertion you made

    Unfortunately the studies I refer to are, hopefully, still stored somewhere in the vast overcrowded space of my loft; and I aint going crawling around up there for this discussion; however please see the studies listed below.
    1: de Groot CP, van Staveren WA (2002) Undernutrition in the European SENECA studies. Clinical Geriatric Medicine 18:699-707
    2: Kirk TR & Cursiter MC (1999) Long-term snacking intervention did not lead to weight gain in free-living man. Scandinavian Journal of Nutrition 2 (Suppl 34): 3-17
    3: Jenkins DJA, Wolever TMS, Vuksan V, Brighhen F, Cunnane SC, RAo AVet al (1989)Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of an increased meal frequency. New England Journal of Medicine 321:929-34
    4: Titan SMO, Bingham S, Welch A, Luben R, Oakes S, Day N Khaw KT (2001) Frequency of eating and concentrations of serum cholesterol in the Norfolk population of the European prospective investigation into cancer (EPIC-NORFOLK) cross sectional study. British Medical Journal 323:1-5
    5: Jenkins DJ (1997) Carbohydrate tolerance and food frequency. British Journal of Nutrition 77 (Suppl 1) S71-81
    6: Position of the American Dietetic Association, Dietitians of Canada and the American College of Sports Medicine on Nutrition and athletic performance (2000). Journal of the American Dietetic Association100:1543-56

    I'm sure I could find more but my fingers are getting tired with all this typing! :)
    I do understand that peer reviewed studies need to be looked at in context. However, I would suggest that you look at the rest of the thread that I linked. There are reviews of studies by highly respected and credentialed individuals in the industry - not just some random internet people. There is nothing to indicate that the assertions are incorrect, and you have yet to provide a single source of reference in any situation for your assertions.

    Copied from the original link in your post:
    In conclusion: Do what works best for you. Strictly from a metabolic standpoint when looking only at expenditure(<-- please note the bold), it's not going to matter how you partition your calories.

    LASTLY: Gym performance and preferential aspects of dieting should absolutely be considered. This article is strictly discussing the myth that frequent feeding boosts metabolism.


    If you read my original post you will see that I advised Johnny of the following:

    As with most things when it comes to diets you need to find, not only, what works for you but the diet regime that fits in with your lifestyle and one that believe in; but base it on actual results!

    Which agrees with the final statement/conclusion of SideSteel. His article is written purely from a perspective of Strictly from a metabolic standpoint when looking only at expenditure and (unless I am reading his final note incorrectly) gym performance and preferential aspects of dieting should be considered; something I was trying to put across. And failed abysmally by the look of it!

    On a final note:

    The benefits of incorporating snacks into a meal plan or increasing meal frequency (may) also include:
    A: Produce a lower level of blood cholesterol
    B: Spread the absorption of nutrients
    C: A smoother insulin response/blood glucose control
    D: Not lead to weight gain if calorie intake remains stable
    E: Help control calorie intake more effectively through discipline
    F: Help individuals with a higher energy/calorific need to meet their requirements (athletic or fitness lifestyle)
    G: Help those with a small appetite meet their energy/calorific requirements (children or elderly)
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    Of your above lettered points, I've never seen anything on A but I'm interested in that if its correct. Many of the other items are highly preferential/individual. That doesn't make them invalid, it just means that I would expect the moderately attentive athlete to monitor the behavioral side of things that meal frequency interacts with and adjust accordingly.

    Things like thermogenesis or protein synthesis can't readily be monitored in this fashion so we rely on a mix of studies and some anecdote, perhaps. Things like "do I need snacks to help me meet my lofty caloric requirements" or "does a higher meal frequency increase satiety" are easily monitored. Or at least they should be.

    I just want to be clear here to differentiate between things that are clearly physiologically superior in terms of a given metric vs things that will vary based on the individual. My assertion is that meal frequency and nutrient timing will matter a great deal to certain individuals in certain contexts but there are few if any statements you could make about MF to claim that a given MF is superior, within the confines of real world eating patterns.

    I think the distinction is important because we have a mountain of dietary myths still running wild, like skipping breakfast will slow your metabolism, or if you don't chug a protein shake the moment you stop curling in the squat rack you'll lose dem gains, etc.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    I know that a nutritional/dietary plan consisting of 5-6 meals per day built around my daily activities work for me with regards to weight management, energy expenditure and recovery. I suppose you could say that is my bias.

    I specifically said, as does the thread linked, that meal timing should be based on energy levels. With regard to weight management directly - there is no evidence that suggests that it impacts it in any way, unless you would like to provide some.
    Unfortunately the studies I refer to are, hopefully, still stored somewhere in the vast overcrowded space of my loft; and I aint going crawling around up there for this discussion; however please see the studies listed below.
    1: de Groot CP, van Staveren WA (2002) Undernutrition in the European SENECA studies. Clinical Geriatric Medicine 18:699-707
    2: Kirk TR & Cursiter MC (1999) Long-term snacking intervention did not lead to weight gain in free-living man. Scandinavian Journal of Nutrition 2 (Suppl 34): 3-17
    3: Jenkins DJA, Wolever TMS, Vuksan V, Brighhen F, Cunnane SC, RAo AVet al (1989)Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of an increased meal frequency. New England Journal of Medicine 321:929-34
    4: Titan SMO, Bingham S, Welch A, Luben R, Oakes S, Day N Khaw KT (2001) Frequency of eating and concentrations of serum cholesterol in the Norfolk population of the European prospective investigation into cancer (EPIC-NORFOLK) cross sectional study. British Medical Journal 323:1-5
    5: Jenkins DJ (1997) Carbohydrate tolerance and food frequency. British Journal of Nutrition 77 (Suppl 1) S71-81
    6: Position of the American Dietetic Association, Dietitians of Canada and the American College of Sports Medicine on Nutrition and athletic performance (2000). Journal of the American Dietetic Association100:1543-56

    I'm sure I could find more but my fingers are getting tired with all this typing! :)

    Exactly which ones are you seeing says meal frequency has any impact on weight loss?
    Copied from the original link in your post:
    In conclusion: Do what works best for you. Strictly from a metabolic standpoint when looking only at expenditure(<-- please note the bold), it's not going to matter how you partition your calories.

    LASTLY: Gym performance and preferential aspects of dieting should absolutely be considered. This article is strictly discussing the myth that frequent feeding boosts metabolism.


    If you read my original post you will see that I advised Johnny of the following:

    As with most things when it comes to diets you need to find, not only, what works for you but the diet regime that fits in with your lifestyle and one that believe in; but base it on actual results!

    Whch agrees with the final statement/conclusion of SideSteel. His article is written purelfy from a perspective lf looking only at calrie expenditure and (unless I am reading his final note incorrectly) gym performance and preferential aspects of dieting should be considered; something I was trying to put across. And failed abysmally by the look of it!

    On a final note:

    The benefits of incorporating snacks into a meal plan or increasing meal frequency (may) also include:
    A: Produce a lower level of blood cholesterol
    B: Spread the absorption of nutrients
    C: A smoother insulin response/blood glucose control
    D: Not lead to weight gain if calorie intake remains stable
    E: Help control calorie intake more effectively through discipline
    F: Help individuals with a higher energy/calorific need to meet their requirements (athletic or fitness lifestyle)
    G: Help those with a small appetite meet their energy/calorific requirements (children or elderly)
    [/quote]

    A - C How or why is this relevant?
    D: how would it lead to weight gain is calories stay the same - please show how it would
    E: Not sure why there is a difference here re MF
    F - G: I never disagreed with this and neither does the thread linked.

    Edited for atrocious typing

Categories