The real key to losing weight is Metabolism!!

bump

I like this post. But ultimately everyone needs to do what works for them. I personally follow most of what the OP posted and I'm happy. No need for people to be so rude about disagreeing.

No, you said you are diabetic. Your rules are different, as Diabetes is a metabolic syndrome that alters the way normal metabolism functions. I'm not talking about exceptions, I'm talking about how a normal, healthy metabolism functions.

Also, calorie burn is NOT linear, and your example is way too simplistic to be realistic. Caloric burn is actually not even based on a 24 hour clock, it's based more on a weekly or monthly average. You do not consistently burn the same number of calories an hour every hour, it's a constant flux up and down based on average activity.

Well, I still contend that there are probably many more people with metabolic syndromes in this country than we realize as it is vastly undiagnosed. I know many people who do not believe they have any kind of metabolic issues that exhibit many signs of hypoglycemia, for example. It is unknown how many might be insulin resistant due to the fact that insulin levels are rarely tested for in normal blood work done by physicians at annual physicals. I doubt I'm as much of an exception as you claim.

Also, I know my example was too simple to be realistic. But the whole electricity/plugged into the main power example was rather simplistic and ridiculous, too. I simply answered the ridiculous with the ridiculous. Don't like it? Don't use silly examples.

I'm totally agree that our body is not on a 24-hour clock and that calorie burn isn't constant due to different schedules with different daily activities, different exercise work-outs on different days, yada yada. That's why I zig-zag my calories throughout the week and shoot for a weekly target rather than a daily one.

Diabetes affects roughly 4% of the world's population. Yes, you are an exception.

It's not broscience, it's Biology 101. Food equals fuel, and as long as you have food in your system being digested, you are not burning fat. Period. Eating constant small meals, and keeping your body in a fed state all day every day can create havoc on a hormonal level, as insulin stays high all the time (yes, eating constantly keeps insulin from spiking and crashing, as it stays continuously spiked

How do you explain my 63lbs lost then? I eat every couple of hours and have lost very consistently since I started this. I'm not diabetic, I don't even have IR anymore (confirmed by blood tests in Nov) I'm lifting weights and am a somewhat decent number for a beginner. Surely I have lost some fat in there?

I did a program a couple of years ago called SureSlim. They are advocates of three meals a day. I was to not eat for five hours at a time. I couldn't keep that up and fell off the wagon and gained.

There's no science to prove that constant eating works. There's none to prove it doesn't either. Like the endless debate over exercising in the morning or evening, it's whatever works best for the person doing it.

If you had read the rest of the post instead of just the part you quoted you would've gotten to the part where I said you burn fat at night, while fasting. I was just explaining how hormones are affected by meal timing. I never once said that you couldn't lose weight or fat by grazing throughout the day.

Stop making up insanely false information.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/

25 million is a lot less than 100 million, and that 25 million includes everyone that's suspected but undiagnosed. 8% of the population is still a rare exception.

Prediabetes ISN'T diabetes.

Bump

Thanks for the excellent info

No, you said you are diabetic. Your rules are different, as Diabetes is a metabolic syndrome that alters the way normal metabolism functions. I'm not talking about exceptions, I'm talking about how a normal, healthy metabolism functions.

Also, calorie burn is NOT linear, and your example is way too simplistic to be realistic. Caloric burn is actually not even based on a 24 hour clock, it's based more on a weekly or monthly average. You do not consistently burn the same number of calories an hour every hour, it's a constant flux up and down based on average activity.

Well, I still contend that there are probably many more people with metabolic syndromes in this country than we realize as it is vastly undiagnosed. I know many people who do not believe they have any kind of metabolic issues that exhibit many signs of hypoglycemia, for example. It is unknown how many might be insulin resistant due to the fact that insulin levels are rarely tested for in normal blood work done by physicians at annual physicals. I doubt I'm as much of an exception as you claim.

Also, I know my example was too simple to be realistic. But the whole electricity/plugged into the main power example was rather simplistic and ridiculous, too. I simply answered the ridiculous with the ridiculous. Don't like it? Don't use silly examples.

I'm totally agree that our body is not on a 24-hour clock and that calorie burn isn't constant due to different schedules with different daily activities, different exercise work-outs on different days, yada yada. That's why I zig-zag my calories throughout the week and shoot for a weekly target rather than a daily one.

Diabetes affects roughly 4% of the world's population. Yes, you are an exception.

Well, it's a lot more common in the USA and I'm guessing that the largest percentage of the posters here at MFP are in the US.

Per the CDC: In 2005–2008, based on fasting glucose or hemoglobin A1c levels, 35% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older had prediabetes (50% of adults aged 65 years or older). Applying this percentage to the entire U.S. population in 2010 yields an estimated 79 million American adults aged 20 years or older with prediabetes.
(http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2011.pdf)

Also, per the CDC: in 2010, 11.3% of the US population over age 20 have diabetes, 25.6 million people.
(http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/estimates11.htm#2)

This totals 46.3% of the US population or about 105 million people. And this is just with people diagnosed or tested. Considering all the folks with no health insurance who probably don't go to doctors for regular testing, the figure could actually be, and probably is, higher.

Sure, it's not the majority, but it's damn close. I'm not nearly the exception here in the US as your post indicates although I didn't check world-wide rates so you could be close for that population. Although, I suspect there are a lot of undiagnosed people all over the globe.

Anyway, my point is, that since a high percentage of Americans have metabolic issues with insulin/blood sugar issues, then it's very possible that my experience of being more successful with 4-6 small meals daily rather than a few bigger meals may apply to them as well. Or maybe not. It's an option they can try for themselves.

Stop making up insanely false information.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/

25 million is a lot less than 100 million, and that 25 million includes everyone that's suspected but undiagnosed. 8% of the population is still a rare exception.

Prediabetes ISN'T diabetes.

Agree
I'm a pre-alcoholic because i have 30 beers in my fridge i could potentially drink...............
If you are allegedly "pre-diabetic" if you start eating right...............NOW for example, you wont be diabetic. Correct me if wrong......

Maybe. With some people it appears to be genetic and even the proper diet may not eliminate it from that person's future, although it might forestall it for awhile.

Personally, the proper diet doesn't do a damn bit of good for me unless I combine it with regular, intense exercise. And there is so much confusion on what the proper diet is. For years I followed what diabetic nutritionists told me to eat which was high-carb/low-fat. All it did was make my diabetes worse, make me gain weight and feel like crap. I was also told walking was the best exercise for diabetics. Well, walking my energetic dog 1-2 hours daily at a brisk pace did nothing for my diabetes control. Following the advice of the experts had me on metformin and glipizide and I still did not have good control.

When my doctor brought up Byetta or insulin, I decided to go against medical advice and drop my carb intake, up my fat intake and up my exercise intensity. I am now off of all diabetic medications with far better control. Of course, the weight finally coming off due to these changes probably helps with that control as well. Anyway, my numbers are now running much more like a non-diabetic's numbers would. But does this mean I'm no longer diabetic? No.

I find your joke about the beers you have in your fridge/alcoholism in poor taste. One can drink for years and not be an alcoholic and have no physical damage from it. There are many indications that pre-diabetes still means that damage is occurring to the body. Particularly to the pancreas's beta cells which may be over-producing insulin in order to keep the blood sugar levels more normal. Yet this is what leads to insulin resistance which, in turn, can cause hypoglycemia and, eventually, diabetes. So pre-diabetes is really the beginning stages of diabetes in all cases. While social drinking is not always the beginning stages of alcoholism. Very different situations and nothing to be laughed at.

Stop making up insanely false information.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/

25 million is a lot less than 100 million, and that 25 million includes everyone that's suspected but undiagnosed. 8% of the population is still a rare exception.

Prediabetes ISN'T diabetes.

Agree
I'm a pre-alcoholic because i have 30 beers in my fridge i could potentially drink...............
If you are allegedly "pre-diabetic" if you start eating right...............NOW for example, you wont be diabetic. Correct me if wrong......

Maybe. With some people it appears to be genetic and even the proper diet may not eliminate it from that person's future, although it might forestall it for awhile.

Personally, the proper diet doesn't do a damn bit of good for me unless I combine it with regular, intense exercise. And there is so much confusion on what the proper diet is. For years I followed what diabetic nutritionists told me to eat which was high-carb/low-fat. All it did was make my diabetes worse, make me gain weight and feel like crap. I was also told walking was the best exercise for diabetics. Well, walking my energetic dog 1-2 hours daily at a brisk pace did nothing for my diabetes control. Following the advice of the experts had me on metformin and glipizide and I still did not have good control.

When my doctor brought up Byetta or insulin, I decided to go against medical advice and drop my carb intake, up my fat intake and up my exercise intensity. I am now off of all diabetic medications with far better control. Of course, the weight finally coming off due to these changes probably helps with that control as well. Anyway, my numbers are now running much more like a non-diabetic's numbers would. But does this mean I'm no longer diabetic? No.

I find your joke about the beers you have in your fridge/alcoholism in poor taste. One can drink for years and not be an alcoholic and have no physical damage from it. There are many indications that pre-diabetes still means that damage is occurring to the body. Particularly to the pancreas's beta cells which may be over-producing insulin in order to keep the blood sugar levels more normal. Yet this is what leads to insulin resistance which, in turn, can cause hypoglycemia and, eventually, diabetes. So pre-diabetes is really the beginning stages of diabetes in all cases. While social drinking is not always the beginning stages of alcoholism. Very different situations and nothing to be laughed at.

well thank you for the correction, but i still find my analogy wildy amusing.................I am still wary of anyone being diagnosed as pre-anything............ if its a pre-condition, its pre-ventable at this stage..........

Stop making up insanely false information.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/

25 million is a lot less than 100 million, and that 25 million includes everyone that's suspected but undiagnosed. 8% of the population is still a rare exception.

Prediabetes ISN'T diabetes.

Agree
I'm a pre-alcoholic because i have 30 beers in my fridge i could potentially drink...............
If you are allegedly "pre-diabetic" if you start eating right...............NOW for example, you wont be diabetic. Correct me if wrong......

What about all the people who say macro-nutrients don't matter. Its all about calories. Would a pre-diabetic be just fine eating mostly refined carbs as long as they restrict their calories?

Ask a Dr., i'm not one, nor do i pretend to be on the internet

Stop making up insanely false information.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/

25 million is a lot less than 100 million, and that 25 million includes everyone that's suspected but undiagnosed. 8% of the population is still a rare exception.

Prediabetes ISN'T diabetes.

Agree
I'm a pre-alcoholic because i have 30 beers in my fridge i could potentially drink...............
If you are allegedly "pre-diabetic" if you start eating right...............NOW for example, you wont be diabetic. Correct me if wrong......

What about all the people who say macro-nutrients don't matter. Its all about calories. Would a pre-diabetic be just fine eating mostly refined carbs as long as they restrict their calories?

Ask a Dr., i'm not one, nor do i pretend to be on the internet

This is why I don't like when people say it doesn't matter what you eat or when you eat, as long as you create a caloric deficit. Because they are ignoring the millions of people with a condition where weight loss might be extraordinarily difficult following such advice because of hormonal resistance.

Those millions are still not the majority. They are the minority. An important minority seeing as I have people in my immediate circle of friends who are diabetic, but still the minority. The vast majority of people without metabolic conditions need to hear that advice. For that matter, even many of the people with metabolic conditions would be much healthier if they were in a true caloric deficit and exercising intensely. There may be ways to optimize things for them, but frankly among the diabetics I know most are severely overweight, eat way too much even if it is what many would call healthy food, and very inactive. Yes there are the exceptions, but not many in my experience. Every one of them would benefit from simply cutting their calories down to a deficit and getting active at something that challenges them physically. Why don't they do it? I have no idea I can't see into their minds, and don't want to guess at it.

Would those same people benefit more from extremely limiting simple carbs since they cannot process sugar correctly, most certainly. Would eating 5-6 times a day help them, that is still questionable from what I have read since eating frequently does seem to keep blood sugar levels higher in non obese individuals. http://www.e-spenjournal.org/article/S1751-4991(10)00054-5/abstract Interestingly the overall insulin response for 3 carb rich meals or 6 carb rich meals was the same in total.

While we do no know what happens with obese individuals of those with insulin resistant diabetes (which I assume is the type of diabetes we are talking about) this certainly requires more study. It also calls into question the claim that eating many small meals in a day is beneficial. I can't imagine, assuming those who are obese or diabetics respond the same way, that a prolonged increased blood sugar level would be beneficial when they are already insulin resistant. I will be interesting to see future studies, which I hope someone will take the time to do as this is rather important to know for those who have diabetes.

Just bumping in case I want to look at this again. Some good points were made, and I'd like to come back and read the whole thing when I have time.

When you are sleeping at night, so is your metabolism.

That is nonsense. I expect this to lead to the "breakfast myth"...and I was right...

2.) Frequency of Eating:

The typical American diet is to skip breakfast, grab a decent lunch, over-eat at supper and snack at night. BAD IDEA!! To promote your body's metabolism, you should eat 5-6-7 times small meals per day.

Numerous studies have found this to not be true. This is one of those myths that need to die.

I am waiting for somebody to tell me why the hell I would want to eat 5-6-7 times per day!! How many calories would that mean for each meal?

Sorry I do not go with this multiple eating during the day, never have.

The metabolism still works during sleep too, if it stopped you would drop dead.

I use to never eat breakfast. I usually ate 2 big meals a day.

I switched to eating with 30 mins of waking up and eating 5-6 times a day with the in between snack being around 150 calories and protein based with a daily calorie budget of 1665, so it is possible to manage.

I am not a doctor, but I wake up hungry now. My body is use to eating something every 3 hours or so now. To me that means my body is burning fat awaiting the next meal. Not dormant, preserving the fat or fuel like he mentioned.

We all have stories here. My story is pretty much exactly what he posted and I never saw this. It worked for me!

Yes, it is possible, but how big would my "meals" be (you wouldn't be able to call them meals, they would all be snacks at that amount of times eating per day) be though?

I am on 1200 calories per day, tell me some meals that I could eat that would be 200 calories each, that would keep me full.

Not being argumentative, just saying that multiple eating is not practical for many people see.

1 Egg. 1 serving of melon. 1 lowfat yogurt.
1 serving of Chicken (2 oz portion), cup of mixed veggies
Quinoa (1/2 cup) and vegetables
1/2 peanut butter sandwich and assorted vegetables
Salad (3 cups) and 2 oz of chicken.
And then two 100 calorie snacks, or four 50 calorie snacks.

Stop making up insanely false information.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/

25 million is a lot less than 100 million, and that 25 million includes everyone that's suspected but undiagnosed. 8% of the population is still a rare exception.

Prediabetes ISN'T diabetes.

Agree
I'm a pre-alcoholic because i have 30 beers in my fridge i could potentially drink...............
If you are allegedly "pre-diabetic" if you start eating right...............NOW for example, you wont be diabetic. Correct me if wrong......

What about all the people who say macro-nutrients don't matter. Its all about calories. Would a pre-diabetic be just fine eating mostly refined carbs as long as they restrict their calories?

Ask a Dr., i'm not one, nor do i pretend to be on the internet

This is why I don't like when people say it doesn't matter what you eat or when you eat, as long as you create a caloric deficit. Because they are ignoring the millions of people with a condition where weight loss might be extraordinarily difficult following such advice because of hormonal resistance.

Those millions are still not the majority. They are the minority. An important minority seeing as I have people in my immediate circle of friends who are diabetic, but still the minority. The vast majority of people without metabolic conditions need to hear that advice. For that matter, even many of the people with metabolic conditions would be much healthier if they were in a true caloric deficit and exercising intensely. There may be ways to optimize things for them, but frankly among the diabetics I know most are severely overweight, eat way too much even if it is what many would call healthy food, and very inactive. Yes there are the exceptions, but not many in my experience. Every one of them would benefit from simply cutting their calories down to a deficit and getting active at something that challenges them physically. Why don't they do it? I have no idea I can't see into their minds, and don't want to guess at it.

Would those same people benefit more from extremely limiting simple carbs since they cannot process sugar correctly, most certainly. Would eating 5-6 times a day help them, that is still questionable from what I have read since eating frequently does seem to keep blood sugar levels higher in non obese individuals. http://www.e-spenjournal.org/article/S1751-4991(10)00054-5/abstract Interestingly the overall insulin response for 3 carb rich meals or 6 carb rich meals was the same in total.

While we do no know what happens with obese individuals of those with insulin resistant diabetes (which I assume is the type of diabetes we are talking about) this certainly requires more study. It also calls into question the claim that eating many small meals in a day is beneficial. I can't imagine, assuming those who are obese or diabetics respond the same way, that a prolonged increased blood sugar level would be beneficial when they are already insulin resistant. I will be interesting to see future studies, which I hope someone will take the time to do as this is rather important to know for those who have diabetes.

Well, I've been saying from the beginning that meal frequency is an individual thing. With my diabetes, small meals with less carb intake, along with regular intense exercise, controls my blood sugar levels quite well. My blood sugar levels are usually in the 110-130 range at 1 and 2 hours post-prandial readings. When I eat a larger meal, even if carbs are still limited, my blood sugar levels can easily go above 180. A larger meal with more carbs, can easily shoot me above 200.

Does this mean it will work for everyone? Probably not. But this doesn't mean that it's not worth trying. Especially if they are doing everything right and not losing. If I start getting lax and eat bigger meals, less often, especially if it's accompanied with carb creep, my weight loss totally stops. I suspect it's due to my insulin resistance and my body being flooded with too much insulin. Another controversial matter, I know. I just know what works for me. And, really, I wish that wasn't the case as I would love to just be able to eat 2-3 larger meals. When I'm doing the numerous small meals daily, I feel better, my blood sugar levels are lower and more stable, and I lose weight better but I really miss the satiation of a fuller stomach. I've been at a plateau for quite awhile now and I believe it's because I let myself eat bigger meals during the holidays and a January vacation and have been having a hard time getting back to eating the smaller, more frequent meals on a consistent basis.

I think scientific studies are great and should be paid attention to. However, that doesn't mean people shouldn't find what works best for them even if it flies in the face of studies. YMMV.

Thanks for those quotes, Tigersword. As it happens, I officially passed "lose 7% of your body weight" yesterday. (Down 18 pounds from 248 = 7.2%.)

I know that doesn't have much to with your discussion with funkycamper, but it's great to hear that first step has greatly reduced the probability of my progressing from "pre-diabetes" to diabetes.