My weightloss just stopped

[SDPT]

Looks like I'm getting teamed up on. Muscle does burn more calories than fat obviously but it is not as much as most people will claim. When I am talking about raising metabolism I am refering mostly to EPOC after the workout where a persons metabolism will be raised for hours afterwords to repair damaged muscle fibers, replaced used up muscle glycogen....

Can you seriously say that eating one to two meals a day at 800 calories is the same as eating 4 meals a day at 400 calories? They both will equal 1600 calories so they are the same. This is clearly not the case and I hope you don't disagree with that.

An another note I rereead that post and I still do not agree that you burn the same amount of calories if you have been doing the same thing in your workout routine. That is personal training 101 and it is why plateaus are usually hit. The study they used in that posting first had to do with Lance Armstrong. I don't think you can compare a study with Lance Armstrong to the general population. It is obvious that it will be hard for him to improve energy efficiency with the amount he has trained. If you take a normal person trying to lose weight they probably haven't done anything before and they will see dramatic effeciency improvements in the beginning of their workout. The human body is an amazing thing and also very lazy. It will find a way to get better at doing the same work and use less energy. This doesn't mean you have run harder or lift more weight, it just means you have to do something different.

I'm not trying to start any fights here I just want to make sure everything I am saying makes sense and that I just disagree with what was stated from others. There is no one right way to train I just have preferences to certain training techniques that have worked for my clients.

 

[Steve]

Steve,


I'd be interested in your source to say that the statements I've made are false.

Sure.

I have a Master's Degree in Exercise Science and I am a licensed nutritionist and I am only stating things that have been shown with clear research.

Great. I've met a lot of ignorant people wearing those same hats. They get hung up on the idea they know everything when this field is so yound and evolving.

If they don't stay current on the research, they don't know squat.

I'm not suggesting this to be the case here, as I know nothing about you. But since you're claiming such expertise, and you're the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you. I'd love to see your research used.

If you know of research that says otherwise from a credible source I would be interested to see this.

With regards to your exercise efficiency statements here:

I looked over this thread and it looks like pretty exactly the same thing I recommended. If you are noticing a stall in your exercise program it probably means that your body is becoming more efficient and you will not burn the same amount of calories that you use to on the same exercise routine and it needs to be changed alittle.

and

The human body can adapt to stress put on it (exercise). You will obviously get better at what you have been doing and your body will learn to burn less calories for the same amount of work.....

Check this study. Since you're expert, I'm sure you pay for access to the various databases.



Now apply that to the context discussed in the article I linked for you earlier found here:



Lyle McDonald is better researched than any nutritionist (even dietitian) I've come across. I'd be more than happy if you proved me wrong though, or better yet him wrong, b/c than I'd be honored and lucky to have you at my disposal.



Or, on the flip side, maybe you'll learn something new.

Either way it's a win win.

With regards to your statements here:

Also, skipping meals and then eating dinner until you are full is a huge problem. You body cannot process more than approx 700 calories at a time(this number will depend on the person.) so anything more than that will be stored as fat even if you have not had eaten a lot the rest of the day.

I'm quite surprised by these words to be honest now that you explain you have a masters in the subject.

I would have thought you'd understand the importance of net energetic state.

Eating nothing but one meal per day obviously isn't optimal. But if you're in a net caloric deficit for the day, you're not going to be storing fat over time.

I urge you to read these links who are written and backed by very knowledgable authors/researchers:





(see page 6 and 7)

After reading that and presenting me with your data, I'd be happy to discuss any questions or comments you might have. I'm actually very interested in hearing what you have to say with regards to Lyle's and Aran's articles and research reviews.

I'll get Alan over here if you're interested. He gives lectures to the FDA and Commission on Dietetic Registration.

Motherof2,

If you are eating 900 calories at dinner and only 500 for the rest of the day you might have some problems.

What sort of problems?

If you are not over weight and are happy with where you are then you might be on the high end with your metabolism and you might be about to get away with this.

What do you mean by "the high end of your metabolism"?

If you are trying to lose weight and this isn't working it would be the first thing I would recommend you change. You body works much better with a constant supply of energy to keep your metabolism elevated.

I would not agree with this given the links I provided you above and the experience I've had working with a good number of people relative to weight loss.

Meal frequency really is of little importance relative to fat loss assuming net calories and macros are in line.

When you get all or most of your calories in one meal your body will store most of the calories as fat.

Not if net caloric balance is negative.

If your body requires 1800 calories per day for maintenance for example, and you eat 1 meal per day that is 1200 calories, the net outcome is fat loss.

 

[SDPT]

Thanks for posting those studies. I did have a couple comments though. On the first study, the link didn't work so I couldn't read the whole study. It looks like they are looking mostly at the thermic effect of food. I agree that this isn't a huge number when looking at weight loss and it should not be a huge concern. The second study I thought was very interesting. They pretty proved my point. When you don't eat often your body started to breakdown protein for energy and slows down fat oxidation. If you don't eat small meals you basically are encourage muscle breakdown and slowing down fat metabolism.

I do agree that studies often can be confusing. One study shows that doing this will help you out with this other study shows that it will kill you.

 

[Steve]

Looks like I'm getting teamed up on. Muscle does burn more calories than fat obviously but it is not as much as most people will claim. When I am talking about raising metabolism I am refering mostly to EPOC after the workout where a persons metabolism will be raised for hours afterwords to repair damaged muscle fibers, replaced used up muscle glycogen....

Did you ever read the big Laforgia review, it's got pretty much every paper up to about 2006 in terms of EPOC?

Can you seriously say that eating one to two meals a day at 800 calories is the same as eating 4 meals a day at 400 calories?

You really oversimplifying the human body here. Similar in what sense?

They both will equal 1600 calories so they are the same. This is clearly not the case and I hope you don't disagree with that.

In what sense?

An another note I rereead that post and I still do not agree that you burn the same amount of calories if you have been doing the same thing in your workout routine. That is personal training 101 and it is why plateaus are usually hit.

Hahaha. Let's keep this civil friend. That is not personal training 101. I'm not sure how many people you've trained but that, by far and away, is not the reason for plateaus in my experience.

The study they used in that posting first had to do with Lance Armstrong. I don't think you can compare a study with Lance Armstrong to the general population.

You really missed the message of that article.

Namely these points:

- Tracked over approximately 7 years of training, Lance improved his efficiency by a whopping 8%. Or roughly 1% PER YEAR.

- “It is hypothesized that the improved muscular efficiency probably reflects changes in muscle myosin type stimulated from years of training intensely for 3-6 h on most days.”

- Read that closely, three to six hours of cycling per day damn near EVERY DAY to get a 1% efficiency increase PER YEAR.

- And yet, somehow, folks think that walking on the treadmill a few times per week is going to ramp up their efficiency such that they are burning massively less calories during their workouts after a few weeks.

- Note: a recent controversy has erupted over the paper I cited above. There are now accusations that Coyle mis-analyzed the data; the re-intrepretation suggests that Lance actually did not improve his efficiency much at all. Which is yet another nail in the coffin of the entire argument:

- if Lance Armstrong, cycling 6 hours per day damn near daily for years on end isn’t becoming more efficient, someone walking on the treadmill a few times per week damn sure isn’t either.

It is obvious that it will be hard for him to improve energy efficiency with the amount he has trained. If you take a normal person trying to lose weight they probably haven't done anything before and they will see dramatic effeciency improvements in the beginning of their workout.

You are misapplying the information.

I'm not trying to start any fights here I just want to make sure everything I am saying makes sense and that I just disagree with what was stated from others.

This isn't a fight.

No way.

It's simply a discussion of the data at hand.

There is no one right way to train I just have preferences to certain training techniques that have worked for my clients.

This isn't about training methodology. It's about physiological principles.

 

[Steve]

Thanks for posting those studies. I did have a couple comments though. On the first study, the link didn't work so I couldn't read the whole study. It looks like they are looking mostly at the thermic effect of food. I agree that this isn't a huge number when looking at weight loss and it should not be a huge concern. The second study I thought was very interesting. They pretty proved my point. When you don't eat often your body started to breakdown protein for energy and slows down fat oxidation. If you don't eat small meals you basically are encourage muscle breakdown and slowing down fat metabolism.

Not if protein is adequate in the diet.

Let's not get into a game of cherry picking research to fit your model.

3 vs 6 meals

Both plans have equal calories and macros and both contain adequate protein and efas.

Why is 6 better than 3?

 

[SDPT]

Steve,

You gave me a lot to read over and I will take a look at all of it and if I have any more comments I'll let you know. I don't remember saying anything about 3 or 6 meals though. I feel like we shouldn't be having this discussion but I could be wrong. Would you recommend someone to eat one meal a day as long as there are in a caloric deficit? Wouldn't you agree that ideally everyone should be eating a few meals a day? If you do then it doesn't matter that we are talking about. If you disagree then I will do my best to show you research based on what I am talking about.

 

[Steve]

Steve,

You gave me a lot to read over and I will take a look at all of it and if I have any more comments I'll let you know. I don't remember saying anything about 3 or 6 meals though. I feel like we shouldn't be having this discussion but I could be wrong. Would you recommend someone to eat one meal a day as long as there are in a caloric deficit?

No.

As I've said previously, obviously 1 meal per day isn't optimal. But you're moving goal posts. You stated eating 1 large meal per day will cause you to get fat.

That's what is in contention. Not if one meal per day is optimal or healthy.

Just if an individual will, over time, gain fat in the face of an energetic deficit... that's what's in contention.

You're right, let's stick to the original problem. My apologies for throwing in the 3 vs. 6... but you were discussing meal frequency here, were you not?

Can you seriously say that eating one to two meals a day at 800 calories is the same as eating 4 meals a day at 400 calories?

Wouldn't you agree that ideally everyone should be eating a few meals a day?

Yup.

But that's not what's in contention.

If you do then it doesn't matter that we are talking about.

Yes it does, lol.

This is what's in contention.

Also, skipping meals and then eating dinner until you are full is a huge problem. You body cannot process more than approx 700 calories at a time(this number will depend on the person.) so anything more than that will be stored as fat even if you have not had eaten a lot the rest of the day.

 

[Darth Pooh]

Thank you for pointing out the first major flaw of this thread Steve.

Since then, it had been a hodge podge of bad information, and Motherof2 getting seriously confused.

 

[Steve]

I just sent Alan an email seeing if he'd be interested in commenting further in this thread.

 

[SDPT]

Unfortunately, since I am new to this forum I cannot post any url's until I have more postings. Once I can I will be able to post links to research articles. Before I do want to be clear with what is at contention. We both agree that ideally eating more often is more beneficial. I understand there are plenty of studies showing that you may not loss more weight if you eat more often, but the other problems that arise with one meal a day even if it is in a caloric deficit need to be considered. Things like increased blood pressure, hunger pains, increased fat oxidation, increased LDL levels....

It seems we are talking about metabolism of eating a large meal and what happens to the calories. I am saying there is a point at which your body cannot use all the calories for normal body functions and begins to store it until it needs it. Is this what you disagree with?

 

[Steve]

Unfortunately, since I am new to this forum I cannot post any url's until I have more postings. Once I can I will be able to post links to research articles. Before I do want to be clear with what is at contention. We both agree that ideally eating more often is more beneficial.

Beneficial in what sense? That's a pretty broad term considering the complexity of the 'system' we're discussing here, I hope you'd agree?

I understand there are plenty of studies showing that you may not loss more weight if you eat more often, but the other problems that arise with one meal a day even if it is in a caloric deficit need to be considered. Things like increased blood pressure, hunger pains, increased fat oxidation, increased LDL levels....

This is not what's in contention.

I've clearly quoted you numerous times now as to what's in contention. The words that I directly quoted you saying (typing) is what's in contention.

It seems we are talking about metabolism of eating a large meal and what happens to the calories. I am saying there is a point at which your body cannot use all the calories for normal body functions and begins to store it until it needs it. Is this what you disagree with?

For the most part, yes.

Hence the reason I posted this article. Lyle says it better than I possibly could have regarding the subject:

 

[Alan Aragon]

Steve,

You gave me a lot to read over and I will take a look at all of it and if I have any more comments I'll let you know.

This is the key right here. SDPT - I think you'll end up thanking Steve. Given that you have enough intelligence and gumption to make it through grad school & professional credentialing, I think you'll appreciate the links he provided. Steve has pretty much countered the things you're incorrect on, but I'd like to comment on this bit in particular:

It seems we are talking about metabolism of eating a large meal and what happens to the calories. I am saying there is a point at which your body cannot use all the calories for normal body functions and begins to store it until it needs it.

While it's true that (generally speaking) more of a large meal is stored as fat compared to a small meal, if calories are matched between a gorging protocol and a grazing protocol, the thermogenic and body compositional effects will be similar, as shown in tightly controlled metabolic ward studies. This is because the gorging pattern has longer fasting phases wherein a greater oxidation of stored fat occurs. So, looking at things conversely, while a grazing pattern may cause less fat storage per meal, it also has less fat oxidation opportunity between meals compared to a gorging pattern. This is why they even out in terms of weight/fat/thermogenesis when calories are matched between treatments.

 

[Steve]

Much appreciated Alan, thanks for checking in.

I hate to tear you away from the mecca of bro-speak that bb.com is!

 

[Alan Aragon]

Much appreciated Alan, thanks for checking in.

I hate to tear you away from the mecca of bro-speak that bb.com is!

Don't forget to take your waximaize & bcaas, bro!!1

 

[Steve]

Nevarrr!!!11

For seriously though...



For those checking into this thread; I heavily endorse a read through Alan's site. I know a lot of people look to me for information. Well, Alan is a source of much of what I know.

Check him out at:

 

[Vitality!]

Nevarrr!!!11

For seriously though...



For those checking into this thread; I heavily endorse a read through Alan's site. I know a lot of people look to me for information. Well, Alan is a source of much of what I know.

Check him out at:

I do quite often, Steve.

An excellent informative discussion, between two people I respect (Alan and you).

Much to learn.

It never stops.

And, never should.

Swell the brains cells for the: WIN!

he, he.....

Best wishes,

Chillen

 

[SDPT]

I did read over much of the links that were posted. And from what I can see you guys are telling me two different things. In one of the papers, it clearly states that in a fasting eating approach fat oxidation slows down and protein oxidation speeds up. You just said the opposite. I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me then. Here is the bottom line. I joined this forum to try and help people lose weight and keep it off not to argue over physiology. I do enjoy learning more and more everyday and I take to heart everything you have posted in contrast to mine. I do not want to give bad information. I just don't think we are seeing eye to eye on this one so let's just let it go. I just want to help the original poster who I'm sure has lost interest long ago. If you want to keep discussing this we can but I think we would serve this forum better if we just came up with a good answer for the person with the problem. If you don't agree I can stop posting to this forum and find a different one.

 

[Steve]

Hmm...

First, this forum has proven to be an excellent resource for many, many people. One of the foundational factors contributing to its resourcefulness is the maintenance of integrity with regards to information.

This means if something is stated, especially by a 'professional', things get hashed out in a meaningful way and everyone interested learns something.

If you care to stay or go, that's on you. Just know that if I don't agree with something else you type, I'm not going to sit back without countering. I too am a professional in the industry. I love the opportunity to disagree with other professionals b/c in any event, I'll either help a fellow professional learn something which benefits the industry as a whole, or I'll learn something thus bettering my own ability as a trainer.

Most 'professionals' that find their way in here lose their cool and view these sorts of debates as attacks. Invariably they don't last long, as I'm sure you can imagine.

Second, I'm not sure where the confusion lies?

Also, skipping meals and then eating dinner until you are full is a huge problem. You body cannot process more than approx 700 calories at a time(this number will depend on the person.) so anything more than that will be stored as fat even if you have not had eaten a lot the rest of the day.

Through all the posts, my message gets hidden, but it's quite simplistic.

If net calories and macros are matched for the goal of fat loss, the number of meals are of little importance. If someone schedule only permits 1-2 feedings, sure, I doubt it's optimal. I don't believe research is conclusive on this at all. But I certainly don't believe a low meal frequency is going to override basic thermodynamics, which this quote of yours seems to imply.

 

[SDPT]

I am totally fine with that. I won't expect you to sit back if you don't agree with a posting and I will do the same. I'm just surprised at your answer. When talk about fat loss you can't only look at the Law of Thermodynamics and nothing else. Yes you will lose weight if you are in a calorie deficit but are you losing fat or lean body mass and what stress are you putting on the body by fasting. Our recommendations are just different and people can use what ever they feel with work for them.

 

[Alan Aragon]

I did read over much of the links that were posted. And from what I can see you guys are telling me two different things. In one of the papers, it clearly states that in a fasting eating approach fat oxidation slows down and protein oxidation speeds up.

Can you point me to the paper that says this?

Here is the bottom line. I joined this forum to try and help people lose weight and keep it off not to argue over physiology. I do enjoy learning more and more everyday and I take to heart everything you have posted in contrast to mine. I do not want to give bad information. I just don't think we are seeing eye to eye on this one so let's just let it go. I just want to help the original poster who I'm sure has lost interest long ago. If you want to keep discussing this we can but I think we would serve this forum better if we just came up with a good answer for the person with the problem. If you don't agree I can stop posting to this forum and find a different one.

I think that as practitioners, a sincere attempt should be made to insure that our assertions are rooted in scientific research rather than traditional dogma or subjective opinion. Everything I recommend to the majority of clients can be backed with substantial amounts of research. In this discussion, Steve has thus far refuted claims you made with scientific research. Thus far your counter-arguments (that were on topic) have not been supported by research. If this were a discussion based on sharing personal experience, that would be one thing. But if you make assertions based on the physics of the body, it's implied that this discussion is scientific in nature, and thus, each physiological claim you make should have a research basis.