No carbs in the evening to shift last few pounds?????

Holy cow, I'm doing the exact opposite of what you just said. I eat 2 meals a day and my last meal dinner is where most of my calories are. Close to 2000 calories. Few years ago, I believed and practiced what you just preached. Then after reading some new research, I'm doing just the opposite. I haven't gained any weight. I'm not trying to lose weight either. Just trying to recompose.

Now I'm trying a high saturated fat diet to improve my HDL. I'm trying to consume about 133g fat a day. Half of that is saturated fat. This must really blow your mind.

You really can't change your body composition without gaining or losing weight. Gain weight to add muscle, lose weight to burn fat. If your body isn't changing in weight, then you're not doing either of those things.

Just something to consider.

Word. Check out Martin's post where he addresses the eating every 2-3 hours to stroke your metabolic fire. I find his stuff very interesting and funny.

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

Yeah I saw it when he posted it on the bodybuilding.com forums :]

I've tried cut and bulk cycles and it appear it's not for me. I use Wender's 531 with bodybuilding style to bulk and circuit training style to cut. I can cut until I'm under 10% body fat, but I then I look incredibly scrawny. Then I tried to a slow bulk, but end up looking fat again. Repeat and it appears I end up the same place over and over again. That's why I'm trying this IF carb-backloading style to see if this fits me better. Cutting sux and feels taxing on the body. Bulking is fun but I feel fat and lazy.

Why are you doing circuit training to cut? Maintain high weight, low reps for your cutting routine. If you feel you gain too much fat bulking, then bulk slower to minimize fat gains (slower than you were). If you felt scrawny after your cut, then cut slower to maximize fat loss and minimize muscle loss. I would say upping to protein to higher numbers, 1.2 - 1.5g per pound LBM, could potentially help, too, if the standard 1g per pound LBM did not.

High weight + low reps = more muscle sparing than circuit training.

Oh my. And where did you get your education? There's always going to be individuals on both sides of an issue.

Scientific research. How about you? Men's Health? Supplement ads?

Honestly, look at the people who are your ideals. Do you want to look like a pro athlete? A model? A very fit friend? Ask them what they do, i bet nutrient timing is important for them.

Okay, here are some people that eat all their calories in an 8 hour window per day:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2wFoFwS-A3o/TeFQUHIkFxI/AAAAAAAABJc/s29MVzoun6c/s1600/Leangains+Success+Story+Spencer+After.JPG

http://articles.elitefts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/martin.bmp

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dtaWqzV6d7M/TRib99OMPPI/AAAAAAAAA8c/UJxDOIPZdkk/s1600/Intermittent+Fasting+Leangains+Competition+Day+Lange.jpg

http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/img/user_images/growable/2010/03/27/22285211/gallerypic/1QYQVEy93bxDM3O5NpwNUakvjX45325e.jpeg

No, when you eat a food does not change it's TEF (do you enjoy using words that other readers may not understand?) but it can change what your body does with it. Muscles function like insulin and perform glucose uptake from the blood stream. This results in quick energy as well as stable blood sugar levels. Whenblood sugar levels remain stable energy levels remain stable as well as keeping hunger at bay.

If someone prefers more meals for reasons of satiety, that's one thing. That does NOT change the fact that two diets that are the exact same in calories/macronutrients will see the same exact results even if one person eats all his meals in 2 sittings and the other eats all his meals in 6 sittings.

Feel free to post some evidence that supports your claim that meal timing/frequency matters in regards to body composition. Find me a shred of evidence that you lose more fat eating 6 meals per day than you will eating 2 meals per day assuming calories/macronutrients are consistent.

If your basing your statement on nutrient timing being unimportant on the fact that if your inactive it's irrelevant then you are correct, but aren't you kind of missing the whole point of this site? If you're active, walk, run, play sports, lift weight, clean house, have kids you chase around, when you eat and what you eat matters. I could find a website that says the moon is made of cheese, that doesnt mean its credible

I'm not talking about websites. I'm talking about SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS in scientific journals.

Why do you HAVE to eat within 30 minutes of exercise? If I go lift weights, which I do regularly, why do I have to drink a protein shake within an hour of lifting? Who says?

If I go for a bike ride for 50 miles, which I do regularly, why do I have to eat immediately after? Who says?

Here are some fun things you can read:

"The study was a randomized crossover design with two treatment periods. During the treatment periods, subjects consumed all of the calories needed for weight maintenance in either 3 meals/d or 1 meal/d.

Subjects who completed the study maintained their body weight within 2 kg of their initial weight throughout the 6-mo period. There were no significant effects of meal frequency on heart rate, body temperature, or most of the blood variables measured. However, when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol."

-K. Stote, D. Baer, K. Spears, et al. A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults. Am J Clin Nutr; 85:981-988 (April 2007).

"Many health practitioners recommend eating small, frequent meals for weight loss, yet the relationship of eating patterns, such as eating occasion frequency (EOF), to energy intake and body weight is controversial. Broad-based efforts to promote worksite wellness programs increase the importance of this issue, as many work environments inherently restrict eating patterns. The eating patterns of school personnel are understudied, but are of particular interest, not only because they have limited eating opportunities during the day but also because their diet and weight outcomes are likely to influence behaviors of a much larger population. We examined relationships between weekday EOF and energy intake and BMI among female elementary school personnel in 22 schools in a suburban county of southeastern Louisiana. Two 24-h dietary recalls were administered to randomly-selected employees (n = 329) on nonconsecutive days by registered dietitians. Measured heights and weights were used to calculate BMI (weight/height(2)). On average, employees consumed 2.2 of their total 5.9 meals and snacks during the school day, accounting for 37% of daily energy. In multiple regression models controlling for demographic and health variables, EOF as well as separate counts of meal and snack frequency were each positively and significantly associated with energy intake. However, neither the number of meals, snacks, nor overall EOF was associated with BMI. The proportion of energy consumed during the school day and the positive association of weekday EOF with energy intake suggest an important role for worksite wellness programs that target the dietary improvement of elementary school personnel."

-Hartline-Grafton HL, Rose D, Johnson CC, Rice JC, Webber LS. The influence of weekday eating patterns on energy intake and BMI among female elementary school personnel. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010 Apr;18(4):736-42. Epub 2009 Aug 20.

There have been reports of an inverse relationship between meal frequency (MF) and adiposity. It has been postulated that this may be explained by favourable effects of increased MF on appetite control and possibly on gut peptides as well. The main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of - 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34.6 (sd 9.5); BMI 37.1 (sd 4.5) kg/m2) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4.7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0.01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( - 3.1 (sd 2.9) kg; P < 0.01), lean body mass ( - 2.0 (sd 3.1) kg; P < 0.05) and BMI ( - 1.7 (sd 0.8) kg/m2; P < 0.01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study.

-Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E. Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet. Br J Nutr. 2010 Apr;103(8):1098-101. Epub 2009 Nov 30. PubMed PMID: 19943985.

"Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people’s habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a ‘nibbling’ meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation."

-France Bellisle, Regina McDevitt and Andrew M. Prentice, British Journal of Nutrition (1997), 77 (Suppl. I), S57-S70.

Whooooooah! Like erk143 says everyone has different opinions on these things and people have proven that different types of diet work for them. It doesn't mean someone with a different opinion is necessarily wrong. I wondered if anyone had any experience of no carbs in the evening and how it went. Think I'll give it a try over the next couple of weeks to see if it changes anything. Just wanted to try something slightly different as I think my body may be too used to what I'm doing.

Let me make something clear.

You can't have an opinion on whether carbs at night are beneficial or detrimental, or whether eating 6 meals per day is better compared to eating 2 meals per day OUTSIDE OF PEOPLE who have some sort of clinical condition such as insulin resistance or people who are trying to accomplish something specific in training (such as people who are performing multiple glycogen-depleting exercises per day).

There is no opinion. Based on axiom's of nutrition, it's impossible to say that for the standard person who eats healthy and exercises an "average" amount, meal timing matters. It would be similar to saying my body treats 1g carb as 2 calories while yours treats it as 6 calories. No, 1g carb for EVERYONE is 4 calories. You can't argue an opinion that says, "6 meals is better than 2 meals" when scientific evidence states otherwise.

Just because eating 6 meals per day works or reducing carbs at night works does not mean it is necessary and it does not mean doing those things SPECIFICALLY is what elicited change.

If you reduce carbs at night then you may wake up slightly lighter for the first few days because of reduced water intake in the evening as a 1g carb carries 3-5g water. So you may see a fluctuation in water weight, but ZERO change in body fat stores.

I agree with erk143. Just Calorie counting will get the fat off, but nutrient timing is important for maximal results.

I try to get a healthy carb with some protein in me right before bedtime. The body does it's most important work at night. Give it the materials to do the job right. Sleep is not an excuse to starve yourself.

Please explain how nutrient timing is important. And cite your evidence.

I have just cited evidence showing BETTER results by eating less meals per day. Please refute that.

Thank you.

yournameisuntz,

If you believe in Berkham's teachings, then you SHOULD believe that nutrient timing is very important. Isn't that the whole point of IF? Time your nutrients to improve your p-ratio?

Also, your comments on body recomp without weight gain/loss are interesting as well as that goes against what's been demonstrated time and time again by Berkham's clients.

yournameisuntz,

If you believe in Berkham's teachings, then you SHOULD believe that nutrient timing is very important. Isn't that the whole point of IF? Time your nutrients to improve your p-ratio?

Also, your comments on body recomp without weight gain/loss are interesting as well as that goes against what's been demonstrated time and time again by Berkham's clients.

There's not enough evidence to suggest that IF'ing is universally superior in any way to eating more meals per day. Fasting, for the most part, is utilized for convenience and hunger control.

Her degree was based on studying all of this! That's where she learnt about it! My degree was in Spanish. Maybe can't speak it after all!

Here's what I'm trying to tell you as someone who has participated in research studies and is qualified to work for research organizations (and is negotiating terms with one now):

How do you think doctors, researchers, scientists, etc. stay up-to-date on changes in their field? I mean, surely doctors who are 50 years old like my mum have seen some serious changes in the field. That is, what they learned in medical school ~20-30 years ago is different from information available now as their fields have evolved and knowledge has increased. So how do they stay on top of all these changes?

Scientific, peer-reviewed, published research.

If you want to prove something objectively rather than offering your two cents, do what doctors do and look at the research. That's how they make decisions regarding medications, treatments, food, nutrition, exercise, etc.

What I have done in this thread is provided evidence that meal timing is irrelevant to body composition based on the same evidence that responsible doctors would utilize.