My weightloss just stopped

[i_love_muscle]

You know, this may simply be an issue where certain Universities are using outdated textbooks/information. Not every University is created equally and not every University is on the cutting edge of nutritional science, etc.

I think the bottom line is the more discussion there is about these things, the more we can all stand to learn from it. I, for one, read a lot of conflicting information. Individuals have to be able to find reputable sources. Being able to ascertain who is a reputable source and who isn't can be difficult. Moreover, just because a person has a PhD doesn't automatically make them an authority on a subject, because for them, it's publish or perish, therefore, not everybody who publishes a paper should be given due respect and credibility.

Thank you to Steve for bringing Alan into the discussion; and thank you Alan for taking the time to post.

 

[Alan Aragon]

ILM - you're welcome, and thanks to Steve for inviting me to contribute.

There's obviously nothing fundamentally wrong with recommending a high meal frequency, granted that the macronutrient targets are hit. However, the assumed detriments of a low meal frequency - particularly regarding body composition - are simply not substantiated. So far the majority of the literature shows that the widespread assumptions about low meal frequency (ie, compromised LBM retention, reduced 24-hr thermogenesis, etc) are simply not true when compared to a higher feeding frequency of the same macronutrient content. If the data overwhelmingly favored a higher frequency over a lower one for the aforementioned parameters, there really wouldn't be much debate here.

 

[Darth Pooh]

Hey Alan,

Love reading your stuff (I follow you and Lyle like a maniac, Steve really got me turned on to your stuff).

Now I feel like an idiot though since you referenced BCAA's / Waximaze sarcastically... I've been taking both of them (BCAA's pre-workout and Waximaze post for faster uptake). Ah well, gotta go back to the drawing board

For the record, I've seen where you've posted regarding WMS as a not necessary, where a banana will work just as well.

 

[Alan Aragon]

Hey Alan,

Love reading your stuff (I follow you and Lyle like a maniac, Steve really got me turned on to your stuff).

Now I feel like an idiot though since you referenced BCAA's / Waximaze sarcastically... I've been taking both of them (BCAA's pre-workout and Waximaze post for faster uptake). Ah well, gotta go back to the drawing board

For the record, I've seen where you've posted regarding WMS as a not necessary, where a banana will work just as well.

Regarding BCAA supplementation, whey is roughly 26% BCAA, and most high-quality animal-based protein sources are 18-26% BCAA. Thus supping BCAA on top of a pre-existent high protein intake is not likely help with anything but wallet leanness .

Regarding WMS - its application is limited to a very narrow set of conditions in endurance athletes who deplete glycogen in the same group of muscles more than once in a day. For everyone else, WMS is actually inferior in many respects to other carb sources that are wholefood-based.

 

[Darth Pooh]

Regarding BCAA supplementation, whey is roughly 26% BCAA, and most high-quality animal-based protein sources are 18-26% BCAA. Thus supping BCAA on top of a pre-existent high protein intake is not likely help with anything but wallet leanness .

Regarding WMS - its application is limited to a very narrow set of conditions in endurance athletes who deplete glycogen in the same group of muscles more than once in a day. For everyone else, WMS is actually inferior in many respects to other carb sources that are wholefood-based.

Yeah I just read what you wrote over at BB.com regarding the subject. I am sure I can find a few doodes at the gym willing to buy my remaining BCAA/WMS stash

What sources do you suggest (I've seen you actually suggest bananas which I've used for the better part of a year now)?

 

[Steve]

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 should've couched my previous post to note that I don't believe you to be one of these 'professionals' who comes in here and immediately tucks tail or appeals to emotion simply b/c you were questioned on your advice.

You seem like a stand up guy and it's actually refreshing to have a professional who can handle critique join us. You'd be surprised what sort of 'blessings' happen upon us here at WLF.

I'm just surprised at your answer.

Surprise can be a good thing. Usually when I'm surprised about someone else's data, upon further review, I learn something.

When talk about fat loss you can't only look at the Law of Thermodynamics and nothing else.

Obviously.

And Alan has touched on this perfectly.

This why I brought up critical factors like equal calories and macros. That's certainly going to make a huge difference.

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.

Please note that I wasn't making recommendations in this thread, per se. Your initial advice is what brought me out of the woodwork. Just so you know, in most cases I've worked with it seems high meal frequencies serve people better. It's not b/c of some magical increase in metabolism or some muscle saving quality... it's simply the fact that most of my clients feel more satiated with higher meal frequencies.

Nothing in this world, especially this industry, is black/white either/or though, as I'm sure you know. If someone's schedule limits meal frequency to 1-2 meals per day sometimes, it's simply not going to make much of a difference, again, assuming calories and macros are accounted for.

That's my whole point and the sole reason I contended your advice.

 

[Steve]

Yeah I just read what you wrote over at BB.com regarding the subject. I am sure I can find a few doodes at the gym willing to buy my remaining BCAA/WMS stash

What sources do you suggest (I've seen you actually suggest bananas which I've used for the better part of a year now)?

Keith, I meant to tell you the other day that I recently signed up for Alan's research review that he puts out monthly. It is stupidly cool and high quality. You know it's rare I pimp someone's products, but the money you're blowing on some of these supps would be much better invested in this review.

You like research, so it's right up your alley.

Check out his first issue which is free to browse through:

 

[Darth Pooh]

Keith, I meant to tell you the other day that I recently signed up for Alan's research review that he puts out monthly. It is stupidly cool and high quality. You know it's rare I pimp someone's products, but the money you're blowing on some of these supps would be much better invested in this review.

You like research, so it's right up your alley.

Check out his first issue which is free to browse through:

Totally sexy stuff! :-D I think I might have to sign up for this. For 10 bucks... it's a good deal and keeps me in the know. As far as supps go, I am down to the basics now. Fish Oils, Multi, CoQ10, CLA's, and Animal Flex Pak (which I am going on my second can, I feel that I've had better hip motion, less clicking).

I am still looking into stuff like Animal Pump... which I know I could take cheaper by using bulk stuff, but I'd prefer not to buy a bunch of bulk items just to "test" it out.

 

[Alan Aragon]

Totally sexy stuff! :-D I think I might have to sign up for this. For 10 bucks... it's a good deal and keeps me in the know. As far as supps go, I am down to the basics now. Fish Oils, Multi, CoQ10, CLA's, and Animal Flex Pak (which I am going on my second can, I feel that I've had better hip motion, less clicking).

I am still looking into stuff like Animal Pump... which I know I could take cheaper by using bulk stuff, but I'd prefer not to buy a bunch of bulk items just to "test" it out.

I'd steer clear of CLA supplementation. Here's a post of mine from another board:

************

When non-vested entities review CLA, the conclusions are not favorable:

Conjugated linoleic acid intake in humans: a systematic review focusing on its effect on body composition, glucose, and lipid metabolism.

Salas-Salvad? J, M?rquez-Sandoval F, Bull? M. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2006;46(6):479-88.

Studies performed on different species show that the consumption of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) leads to a loss of fat and total body weight, reduces the plasma concentrations of total and LDL cholesterol, and has an antiinflammatory effect. This article reviews the clinical trials on human beings that evaluate how mixtures of CLA isomers administered as supplements or CLA-enriched products can affect total body weight, body composition, plasma lipid profile, glycemia, insulinemia, insulin sensitivity, lipid oxidation, and inflammation. After analyzing the few studies published to date in reduced samples of healthy humans or patients with overweight, obesity, metabolic syndrome, or diabetes, we deduce that there is not enough evidence to show that conjugated linoleic acid has an effect on weight and body composition in humans. However, some of these studies have observed that the administration of various CLA isomers has adverse effects on lipid profile (it decreases HDL cholesterol concentration and increases Lp(a) circulating levels), glucose metabolism (glycemia, insulinemia or insulin sensitivity), lipid oxidation, inflammation, or endothelial function. Therefore, long-term randomized clinical trials, controlled with placebo, need to be made in large samples of patients to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CLA isomers before its indiscriminate use in human beings can be recommended.

--------------------------------------------------------

The only CLA study done on resistance-trained subjects failed to show any effect:

Effects of conjugated linoleic acid supplementation during resistance training on body composition, bone density, strength, and selected hematological markers.

Kreider RB, Ferreira MP, Greenwood M, Wilson M, Almada AL. J Strength Cond Res. 2002 Aug;16(3):325-34.

Conjugated linoleic acids (CLA) are essential fatty acids that have been reported in animal studies to decrease catabolism, promote fat loss, increase bone density, enhance immunity, and serve as an antiatherogenic and anticarcinogenic agent. For this reason, CLA has been marketed as a supplement to promote weight loss and general health. CLA has also been heavily marketed to resistance-trained athletes as a supplement that may help lessen catabolism, decrease body fat, and promote greater gains in strength and muscle mass during training. Although basic research is promising, few studies have examined whether CLA supplementation during training enhances training adaptations and/or affects markers of health. This study evaluated whether CLA supplementation during resistance training affects body composition, strength, and/or general markers of catabolism and immunity. In a double-blind and randomized manner, 23 experienced, resistance-trained subjects were matched according to body mass and training volume and randomly assigned to supplement their diet with 9 g;pdd(-1) of an olive oil placebo or 6 g;pdd(-1) of CLA with 3 g;pdd(-1) of fatty acids for 28 days. Prior to and following supplementation, fasting blood samples, total body mass, and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) determined body composition, and isotonic bench press and leg press 1 repetition maximums (1RMs) were determined. Results revealed that although some statistical trends were observed with moderate to large effect sizes, CLA supplementation did not significantly affect (p > 0.05) changes in total body mass, fat-free mass, fat mass, percent body fat, bone mass, strength, serum substrates, or general markers of catabolism and immunity during training. These findings indicate that CLA does not appear to possess significant ergogenic value for experienced resistance-trained athletes.

---------------------------------------------------

CLA has adverse effects on markers of cardiovascular health, without significantly affecting bodycomp:

Treatment with dietary trans10cis12 conjugated linoleic acid causes isomer-specific insulin resistance in obese men with the metabolic syndrome.

Diabetes Care. 2002 Sep;25(9):1516-21. Ris?rus U, Arner P, Brismar K, Vessby B.

OBJECTIVE: Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) is a group of dietary fatty acids with antiobesity and antidiabetic effects in some animals. The trans10cis12 (t10c12) CLA isomer seems to cause these effects, including improved insulin sensitivity. Whether such isomer-specific effects occur in humans is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether t10c12 CLA or a commercial CLA mixture could improve insulin sensitivity, lipid metabolism, or body composition in obese men with signs of the metabolic syndrome. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind controlled trial, abdominally obese men (n = 60) were treated with 3.4 g/day CLA (isomer mixture), purified t10c12 CLA, or placebo. Euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp, serum hormones, lipids, and anthropometry were assessed before and after 12 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Baseline metabolic status was similar between groups. Unexpectedly, t10c12 CLA increased insulin resistance (19%; P < 0.01) and glycemia (4%; P < 0.001) and reduced HDL cholesterol (-4%; P < 0.01) compared with placebo, whereas body fat, sagittal abdominal diameter, and weight decreased versus baseline, but the difference was not significantly different from placebo. The CLA mixture did not change glucose metabolism, body composition, or weight compared with placebo but lowered HDL cholesterol.(-2%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results reveal important isomer-specific metabolic actions of CLA in abdominally obese humans. A CLA-induced insulin resistance has previously been described only in lipodystrophic mice. Considering the use of CLA-supplements among obese individuals, it is important to clarify the clinical consequences of these results, but they also provide physiological insights into the role of specific dietary fatty acids as modulators of insulin resistance in humans.

---------------------------------------------------------

More on CLA's adverse effects on cardiovascular health parameters, again, without improving bodycomp:

Effects of cis-9,trans-11 conjugated linoleic acid supplementation on insulin sensitivity, lipid peroxidation, and proinflammatory markers in obese men.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Aug;80(2):279-83. Ris?rus U, Vessby B, Arnl?v J, Basu S.

BACKGROUND: We recently showed that trans-10,cis-12 (t10,c12) conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) causes insulin resistance in obese men. However, metabolic effects of the c9,t11 CLA isomer are still unknown in obese men. Because c9,t11 CLA is the predominant CLA isomer in foods and is included in dietary weight-loss products, it is important to conduct randomized controlled studies that use c9,t11 CLA preparations. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the effects of c9,t11 CLA supplementation on insulin sensitivity, body composition, and lipid peroxidation in a group at high risk for cardiovascular disease. DESIGN: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 25 abdominally obese men received 3 g c9,t11 CLA/d or placebo (olive oil). Before and after 3 mo of supplementation, we assessed insulin sensitivity (hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp), lipid metabolism, body composition, and urinary 8-iso-prostaglandin F(2alpha) (a major F(2)-isoprostane) and 15-keto-dihydro-prostaglandin F(2alpha), markers of in vivo oxidative stress and inflammation, respectively. RESULTS: All subjects completed the study. Compared with placebo, c9,t11 CLA decreased insulin sensitivity by 15% (P < 0.05) and increased 8-iso-prostaglandin F(2alpha) and 15-keto-dihydro-prostaglandin F(2alpha) excretion by 50% (P < 0.01) and 15% (P < 0.05), respectively. The decreased insulin sensitivity was independent of changes in serum lipids, glycemia, body mass index, and body fat but was abolished after adjustment for changes in 8-iso-prostaglandin F(2alpha) concentrations. There were no differences between groups in body composition. CONCLUSIONS: A CLA preparation containing the purified c9,t11 CLA isomer increased insulin resistance and lipid peroxidation compared with placebo in obese men. Because c9,t11 CLA occurs in commercial supplements as well as in the diet, the present results should be confirmed in larger studies that also include women.

-------------------------------------------------------

 

[Darth Pooh]

Naturally, after I just ordered a new bottle of it tonight.

 

[Steve]

What did I tell you about all this stuff?

 

[Darth Pooh]

What did I tell you about all this stuff?

No, you are right, to your credit, same information. However, tonalin (the fat found in sunflower seeds) is what I've been using as a source of fat for my diet. I know I could use wholefoods, but sometimes, eating 60-70 calories of almonds isn't worthwhile to me (I eat a serving a day, but if I were to eat 60 calories of it, I would want more than just that). I don't use olive oil in my cooking and I found it an easy and efficient way to get my fats in. My HDL and LDL levels were amazing on my last blood work results... however, I am worried about the insulin sensitivity issues.

From my perspective, I've used it as part of my daily regimen for the past year and a half, and you know the results I've experienced, so you can understand my hesitation in not using it.

 

[SDPT]

Steve,

I appreciate your last post and you are right. My intention was to teach people but I know I can learn a lot in this forum too. I do not plan on disappearing at all and look forward to reading more posts on here. it would be nice if things were black and white so we would have easy answers but a lot of times it comes down to what works best. I do plan to back up things I say with solid research when appropriate as soon as this forum allows me to. I just need a few more posts to do it.

Alan,

My mistake. The study that I read was actually sent by Darth Pooh but it does talk about fat oxidation slowing down.
[Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time f...[Ann Nutr Metab. 1987] - PubMed Result
I do agree to an extent with what you are saying I just would recommend high frequency in meals because it works better in my experience.

 

[Steve]

Steve,

I appreciate your last post and you are right. My intention was to teach people but I know I can learn a lot in this forum too. I do not plan on disappearing at all and look forward to reading more posts on here. it would be nice if things were black and white so we would have easy answers but a lot of times it comes down to what works best. I do plan to back up things I say with solid research when appropriate as soon as this forum allows me to. I just need a few more posts to do it.

I certainly believe your intentions were good. I also think it's important to note that we don't get into research slinging fests around here unless there's disagreement on a particular subject. We don't expect you to cite where all of your advice is coming from.

Alan,

My mistake. The study that I read was actually sent by Darth Pooh but it does talk about fat oxidation slowing down.
[Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time f...[Ann Nutr Metab. 1987] - PubMed Result
I do agree to an extent with what you are saying I just would recommend high frequency in meals because it works better in my experience.

I can't speak for Alan, but that bold part right there is everything that I'm in contention with.

From my experience most 'fitness experts' hold onto dogma they learn (from school, books, others) and never let go of it. It blinds their ability to think critically.

For instance, the benefit of eating higher meal frequencies with regards to body composition is one of the most popular tidbits passed around by so called experts. However, of the ones I know firsthand, none of them has ever tried any other way. So how do they truly know what's better? It's what they were taught so they took it as gospel without further review.

I've trained enough people in my time using varying degrees of meal frequency to say it doesn't even matter what the research says (even though it's weighted in favor of my side of the debate), anecdotally meal frequency doesn't make a hair's worth of difference in terms of body composition when calories and macros are accounted for. Research merely tries to define reality, not vice versa.

I find it hard to believe you've found differing results and if so, I'd be interested in hearing about said results. Unless that is, you're simply referring to better satiety and the like.

I'm getting wordy hear so I'll try to cut this short... I just wanted to lay out why I'm hung up on this:

Most members here are working mothers. Explaining to them that you're best off eating small, frequent feedings if you want optimal results is a slap in the face. It's not something that comfortably fits their schedule. Getting them worked up over something that isn't going to make a bit of difference doesn't make much sense in my opinion, as it increases their frustrations. Add more frustration and a sense of rigidity to the pot and chances of adherence diminish greatly.

That's not what we want to see. Speaking in generalities, my blanket advice around here is usually, "Eat as many meals as you can comfortably fit into your schedule while accounting for calories and macros. If that happens to be 3, just fine. 6? Okay too."

Can we agree on this?

 

[usedtobefatmatt]

No, you are right, to your credit, same information. However, tonalin (the fat found in sunflower seeds) is what I've been using as a source of fat for my diet. I know I could use wholefoods, but sometimes, eating 60-70 calories of almonds isn't worthwhile to me (I eat a serving a day, but if I were to eat 60 calories of it, I would want more than just that). I don't use olive oil in my cooking and I found it an easy and efficient way to get my fats in. My HDL and LDL levels were amazing on my last blood work results... however, I am worried about the insulin sensitivity issues.

From my perspective, I've used it as part of my daily regimen for the past year and a half, and you know the results I've experienced, so you can understand my hesitation in not using it.

I might be over the line here and have no right to say this so forgive me if i am out of line.

Pooh,
You have done an amazing job with your weight loss and transfirmation. You did it the right way with proper eating and exercise. i can clearly see by a lot of your posts you are reading and learning as much as you can. This is where i might be wrong, it seems like you are looking for some pill and quick fix on how to gain muscle. It seems to me like you want to gain muscle fast (but then again who doesnt) with taking a lot of supplements, mixing them into shakes and that stuff. I follow a lot of your posts and find this to be odd, kind of like you are getting ahead of yourself. Am i wrong with this thought?

Like i said i respect everything you have done and i dont mean this post in a bad way it just strikes me as odd.

Matt

 

[Darth Pooh]

I might be over the line here and have no right to say this so forgive me if i am out of line.

No way. As far as I am concerned, I place myself out there to be "judged", it's just how we are as humans, please don't think I'd be offended for your honesty. You have just as much right as anyone else (if not more, due to your own successes).

Pooh,
You have done an amazing job with your weight loss and transfirmation. You did it the right way with proper eating and exercise. i can clearly see by a lot of your posts you are reading and learning as much as you can. This is where i might be wrong, it seems like you are looking for some pill and quick fix on how to gain muscle. It seems to me like you want to gain muscle fast (but then again who doesnt) with taking a lot of supplements, mixing them into shakes and that stuff. I follow a lot of your posts and find this to be odd, kind of like you are getting ahead of yourself. Am i wrong with this thought?

I think you might be reading into my posts a bit wrong. I know it'll take years to gain the type of muscle I want to. I have a two year plan to just do the type of recomp I want, and I am realistic about my goals. I know gains on the scale aren't all muscle and I know it's about cutting/bulking cycles. That being said, if I wanted to gain quickly, there are a ton of "different" supplements I could easily take, and I have full access to all of them, easily. My questions about the supplements are merely for optimization of my workouts, not so much as a quick fix. I mean, if I am going to try to push up over 200 lbs on the bench, I wanna make sure I am getting the most out of my lifting (without the use of "different" supplements of course). The CLA thing isn't for muscle gain, I used it for almost a year and a half while losing the weight. Actually, and this is purely non-scientific, I found that I have better recomp when I used the CLA (it's congugated linolic acids, basically a fat). It's purely anecodatal however, and for 20 bucks every 2 months... I am content with that. As far as the "pumps" stuff you've been reading from me lately, I have been taking creatine (it's just proven stuff) and bcaa's (which I am stopping today). Nothing else other than my basic's like fish oils and a multi. I ask a lot of questions just because I like to be in the know, most of my other macro's come purely from foods (and whey protein, but I actually enjoy my shakes, and see them as a treat, Steve and I are rare people in the sense that we both like our shakes). Back to the pump thing, there are days in the gym that I feel flat (yesterday for example), I couldn't lift 205 on the bench over 4 times. The week before, I got 215 up 6 times... I simply wanted to look at a better solution to getting better pumps/energy/intensity while in the gym. The Animal Pump Stak seems like a decent combo since it includes the stuff I want (of course at a premium, I could buy most of it in bulk and "make my own" much cheaper) like creatine, caffeine, and glutamine. These are all things proven to make workouts more efficient.

Sorry for the diatribe!

Like i said i respect everything you have done and i dont mean this post in a bad way it just strikes me as odd.

I can totally see how outside it looks like I am some guy just looking for instant muscles. The truth is, I know it'll take a LONG time for a recomp to occur. Please, next time, feel free to call me out... I know I'd be the first guy to do it.

I imagine you'll be in my shoes soon enough

 

[usedtobefatmatt]

No way. As far as I am concerned, I place myself out there to be "judged", it's just how we are as humans, please don't think I'd be offended for your honesty. You have just as much right as anyone else (if not more, due to your own successes).



I think you might be reading into my posts a bit wrong. I know it'll take years to gain the type of muscle I want to. I have a two year plan to just do the type of recomp I want, and I am realistic about my goals. I know gains on the scale aren't all muscle and I know it's about cutting/bulking cycles. That being said, if I wanted to gain quickly, there are a ton of "different" supplements I could easily take, and I have full access to all of them, easily. My questions about the supplements are merely for optimization of my workouts, not so much as a quick fix. I mean, if I am going to try to push up over 200 lbs on the bench, I wanna make sure I am getting the most out of my lifting (without the use of "different" supplements of course). The CLA thing isn't for muscle gain, I used it for almost a year and a half while losing the weight. Actually, and this is purely non-scientific, I found that I have better recomp when I used the CLA (it's congugated linolic acids, basically a fat). It's purely anecodatal however, and for 20 bucks every 2 months... I am content with that. As far as the "pumps" stuff you've been reading from me lately, I have been taking creatine (it's just proven stuff) and bcaa's (which I am stopping today). Nothing else other than my basic's like fish oils and a multi. I ask a lot of questions just because I like to be in the know, most of my other macro's come purely from foods (and whey protein, but I actually enjoy my shakes, and see them as a treat, Steve and I are rare people in the sense that we both like our shakes). Back to the pump thing, there are days in the gym that I feel flat (yesterday for example), I couldn't lift 205 on the bench over 4 times. The week before, I got 215 up 6 times... I simply wanted to look at a better solution to getting better pumps/energy/intensity while in the gym. The Animal Pump Stak seems like a decent combo since it includes the stuff I want (of course at a premium, I could buy most of it in bulk and "make my own" much cheaper) like creatine, caffeine, and glutamine. These are all things proven to make workouts more efficient.

Sorry for the diatribe!



I can totally see how outside it looks like I am some guy just looking for instant muscles. The truth is, I know it'll take a LONG time for a recomp to occur. Please, next time, feel free to call me out... I know I'd be the first guy to do it.

I imagine you'll be in my shoes soon enough

Cool post and i understand everything you said here. you do have clear goals and i have read your timeframes before and that is something i respect. I didnt think you would be looking for that quick fix and you are clearly not. Keep up the good work.

On a side note...i saw in another post your wife fell. Hope she is doing well and is ok.

Matt

 

[SDPT]

Most members here are working mothers. Explaining to them that you're best off eating small, frequent feedings if you want optimal results is a slap in the face. It's not something that comfortably fits their schedule. Getting them worked up over something that isn't going to make a bit of difference doesn't make much sense in my opinion, as it increases their frustrations. Add more frustration and a sense of rigidity to the pot and chances of adherence diminish greatly.

That's not what we want to see. Speaking in generalities, my blanket advice around here is usually, "Eat as many meals as you can comfortably fit into your schedule while accounting for calories and macros. If that happens to be 3, just fine. 6? Okay too."

Can we agree on this?

yes I can agree on this. i do understand what you are saying. I just have two problems. When a client comes to me because they are overweight, a lot of times they are skipping breakfast eating lunch and dinner and that is it. Granted their calories and macros might not be correct but I think it is a good idea to change what isn't working. if they can get more meals in then that I what i recommend they do. I think a lot people make excuses that they can't fit more meals in so I try to eliminate the excuses if at all possible. if not then yes let's do what we can with what we have to work with. My second problem is my only goal is not just to change body comp. I want clients to live longer and healthier lifestyles. if you are starving yourself be eating too infrequently those health problems can arise which I have spoke of later. if my only concern was to get them to lose weight then I wouldn't worry about this.

 

[Darth Pooh]

Cool post and i understand everything you said here. you do have clear goals and i have read your timeframes before and that is something i respect. I didnt think you would be looking for that quick fix and you are clearly not. Keep up the good work.

On a side note...i saw in another post your wife fell. Hope she is doing well and is ok.

Matt

Thanks for the understanding / concern. It is much appreciated...

She is fine now... nice bruise right on the tailbone, but nothing she can't complain about

 

[Alan Aragon]

I think a lot people make excuses that they can't fit more meals in so I try to eliminate the excuses if at all possible. if not then yes let's do what we can with what we have to work with. My second problem is my only goal is not just to change body comp. I want clients to live longer and healthier lifestyles. if you are starving yourself be eating too infrequently those health problems can arise which I have spoke of later. if my only concern was to get them to lose weight then I wouldn't worry about this.

My question is, why not address the root of the problem (too many calories, suboptimal macronutrition and food choices) rather than focusing on increasing their meal frequency right off the bat? I have plenty of clients who eat 3 times a day and are extremely thankful that they don't have to eat 6 times a day in order to optimize health and fitness. And, your concern about a lower meal frequency from a health and longevity standpoint warrants closer examination. Although lower 24-hour insulin levels as well as lower fasting and total LDL-cholesterol levels have been observed with higher meal frequencies, these studies have used unrealistic protocols for the higher frequency treatments, comparing 3 meals to 9 or 17 meals per day. And now for the kicker -- these trials have not employed an exercise protocol, which in all likelihood would eliminate any difference in blood lipids between the groups. Also take note that the body can adapt to, and maintain favorable homeostasis with a wide range of feeding frequencies, as long as consitency of the given meal schedule is maintained.

Again, Lyle McDonald and I have written extensively on the subject of meal frequency, and I think that if you give those two review articles an honest re-read (see post #22 in this thread), you'll pick up some new knowledge and allow your perspective to evolve.

I'm not sure how fresh off of your graduate degree you are, but I completed master's in nutrition in 2001. And guess what? At that point I was absolutely crammed with textbook and classroom dogma. Little did I know just how much of the sacred rules I learned were completely incorrect. It wasn't until I immersed myself in reviewing the entire body of scientific research on various fitness-related topics that I was able to 'graduate' further in terms of my understanding of what's known versus assumption passed on as truth from one generation of students to the next.