Must-Read INFO on Metabolism, Gaining and Losing

Aren't they discussing general weight loss for the public at large? How does something that affects a subset of people with a particular type of diabetes apply?

Because the difference between a fat person and a fat person with type II diabetes is often only the level of insulin resistance.

Aren't they discussing general weight loss for the public at large? How does something that affects a subset of people with a particular type of diabetes apply?

Because the difference between a fat person and a fat person with type II diabetes is often only the level of insulin resistance.

I think you miss the point

And no, it's not.

Aren't they discussing general weight loss for the public at large? How does something that affects a subset of people with a particular type of diabetes apply?

Because the difference between a fat person and a fat person with type II diabetes is often only the level of insulin resistance.

Evidence to support this comparison?

All in for this one.

And no, it's not.

Prove it.

I think you fail to see how this works... You spout off a claim, then you're the one who is supposed to back it up. Nom sayin?

In...

@EvgeniZyntx

My personal position is that, while meal frequency does have some effects on a variety of hormones, it really is a question of preference and not the single solution for all in terms of general weight loss. Thermogenesis studies tend to show that energy balance is really more about total calories than meal frequency or meal timing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3592618

I am sure you don't mind some science

Have you read this one:
http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/files/Kahleova.pdf

This suggests that meal frequency makes a difference, at least in type II diabetics. Not sure what the underlying mechanism is although I strongly suspect that insulin might be involved somehow. I'll certainly watch that space.

I apologise wholeheartedly to all spectators for pulling this thread back on a more factual level. :flowerforyou:

That's an interesting read and and similar work on insulin resistance is one of the reasons for my caveat. Insulin sensitivity seems to the current hypothesis for the mechanism of action. The general criticism one can make on these studies is that since consumption is self-reported (even in a well designed cross-over study like this one) one might be likelier to over consume a 6x meals than at 2x - and the idea that these are iso-caloric diets might not be true.

In real world application - it might not make a difference. IF or 2 meals might be superior for a lot of people because one eats less if the window of eating is smaller.

With regards to the mechanism of action - I have the opinion that it's too early to say "insulin" given that few of these studies are set up to look at leptin or ghrelin or other markers over large populations over large diet periods. I expect that it is complex and that, in reality meal timing and meal frequency do have role but that this role is so secondary to total calories and consistent tracking that they can be ignored.

--- that's for the science ---

Personal: I can't IF because my activity plan may vary a lot each day and type of activity leads to "crash and burn" situations. I tried it a few years ago with the idea that my body would be used to only eating in the afternoon/evening and a 5-hour morning bike climb on the Karwendel near Munich with little in me (day two of a multi-day ride) left me zapped and in a dangerous situation.

Now, back to the trainwreck... I hope.:drinker: :bigsmile:

Evidence to support this comparison?

Yup:
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/10842
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17167471
http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/21/12/1443.long

This is great. I might as well get in on the action:

OP, where did you "study nutrition" between the ages of 19 and 22?

I believe her profile states - "Currently living in China teaching english to children." and
"I enjoy studying nutrition and practicing a healthy lifestyle. "

I enjoy learning, too. Doesn't mean I am formally studying at present.

You can help Chinese children learn English, without being an English teacher.

English as a foreign language doesn't require the same level of qualifications as being an English teacher in British schools (don't know about the USA)....... To teach EFL takes a very intensive and not easy course that lasts around 1 month. To teach in a school in the UK you need 4 years at university - 3 years undergrad plus one year postgrad (PGCE) or a 4 year teaching degree (that's the same amount of study and school experience as doing the 3 year degree + one year PGCE. So to teach EFL you can do that with any degree and a 1 month course... to teach English in high schools you need an undergrad degree in English followed by a 1 year postgraduate course. (primary school teachers teach all subjects but must have an undergrad degree in a national curriculum subject)

You can actually teach English as a foreign language with no teaching qualifications at all in many countries, because I was accepted at a school in Saudi on the basis of being a native speaker and having a degree (subject doesn't matter), and I know at least one international language school that will routinely take people with just an undergraduate degree and being a native speaker to work as English as a foreign language teachers.

So it's not the same at all.

This is not to diss people who teach EFL... I've done that for years. But it's totally not in the same league as school English teachers who have to teach stuff like Shakespeare.