Not sure how I should loose weight

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeanette401 said:
Except that the webmd article you linked is from 2007 and it's more recent studies that have shown there isn't actually a metabolic advantage from eating more frequently. Not saying not to eat frequently if it works for you, but the belief that it actually 'stokes the metabolism' or that fasting for any length of time puts you in starvation mode is not actually correct.

If you can actually find a study that shows your metabolism dropping whenever your stomach is empty I think all of us would be interested in reading it.
Click to expand...

:) of course. I know I've seen a breakdown on a website before buuut, I'm unaware of its published date.. and you knoooow my google-fu fails me as soon as I try to find it again. But.. from what I remember it wasn't the metabolic rate directly that it had an effect on--but the way our body was able to process the amount of food we ate the rate we needed to get it out to our bodies. (does that make sense?) .. I found something similar to the website I originally read.. but its not the same.


Increased metabolism is achieved by eating more, but eating smart. It not only helps to enhance the metabolic processes but also helps to burn the extra fat and enhance overall health condition. It is a fact that amongst all the food groups, complex carbohydrates and proteins require more energy for their breakdown and absorption. Foods that increase metabolism are the ones that are high in complex carbohydrates and proteins. Since the breakdown and absorption of complex carbohydrates and proteins takes longer time, the release of the caloric energy is spread out over a longer period of time, which results in less insulin released into the blood stream. On the other hand sugars and fats, tend to give you a temporary and quick energy high, which is often followed by a low energy period, which results in increased craving for the sugar and fat products.

maybe it doesn't effect metabolic rate, which would of course prove Kara and a few other points.. but eating smaller portions through out the day will give your body a chance to evenly distribute and use energy. Forgive me if I'm only half understandable.. I'm trying to think about this thoroughly while I'm also trying to give my "full attention" to work.
 
Wrong again. Meet your writer

Uttara Manohar
I am a mass communication student and writing has always been my passion. Writing gives me a sense of creative satisfaction and paves way for emotional expression, which makes my work always seem like fun!



Try doctors, medical case studies, etc
 
Jericho said:
Posting a blog entry isn't scientific.

Posting an outdated WebMD article isn't either.


And fitness, you came to find help or give it? I was confused based on all your other posts. Now, You deal with facts but you turn a blind eye to any that shows you are wrong. That's not dealing with facts. If you prove me wrong with scientific case studies, then I admit I'm wrong..I don't throw a tantrum like you just did.
Click to expand...

Hey, forget it! You have a happy life, hope you achieve all you set out do. I'm outta here!
 
Jericho said:
Wrong again. Meet your writer

Uttara Manohar
I am a mass communication student and writing has always been my passion. Writing gives me a sense of creative satisfaction and paves way for emotional expression, which makes my work always seem like fun!



Try doctors, medical case studies, etc
Click to expand...

you're tone is coming off rude, although.. since you're heated up over what fitness dave said, you're probably not noticing it. The article I provided may not be totally credible, but the thought process of how I concluded such was at least valid (as an opinion).. you didn't want to discuss that. just that I was wrong. (which, is of course, why you came off with a rude tone)

I didn't want to prove people wrong, just wanted to provide WHY someone could "disagree" with something that is factual. another point to this argument is that because factual evidence is changed so much, as new information and studies roll in it could very well sway back the other direction in time. If factual evidence never changed the world would still be flat.
 
but you can't debate fact with opinions. When you post inaccurate blog writings as fact, you do nothing but disservice people.

And yeah, my tone was rude cause sometimes I get tired of people assuming that everything you read on the internet is fact.

I posted several medical facts and you come back with a blogger opinion.

Look, dieting is a religon to some. You lock into one mind set and turn a blind eye to science. It's how people believe detoxing works dispite proof otherwise. It's how people believe that negative calorie diets works. Or that you can take a pill and lose 10 pounds a week. Or that eating several small meals a day is fact. If you said instead that I feel better eating several small meals a day for my weight loss, that's different. That's not what was said. one is opinion, one is fact.
 
Jericho said:
but you can't debate fact with opinions. When you post inaccurate blog writings as fact, you do nothing but disservice people.
Click to expand...

But I wasn't trying to debate the facts Kara posted.. what I was debating was the reason people would believe it.. saying there are many articles to go on both sides of the argument.

Jericho said:
And yeah, my tone was rude cause sometimes I get tired of people assuming that everything you read on the internet is fact.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should just take a step back next time.. I know I look like a newb, but this is only a new SN for me. Had I not ever seen you before, and you came at me like that I might be tempted to leave because "you people" are rude. Chill out sometimes, its ok.. I know it gets annoying but you want people to feel welcomed when they come to this forum. Either say your peace in a neutral tone or don't say anything at all, maybe.

Jericho said:
If you said instead that I feel better eating several small meals a day for my weight loss, that's different. That's not what was said. one is opinion, one is fact.
Click to expand...
actually I did say that. :| mebbe you should scroll up?
 
It seems as though the one side minded individuals are at it again, not to mention any names. Only listen to what "highly paid practioners say". There are many studies out there that argue both sides of this case. Just b/c a study is 3 years old does not me it wasn't valid at the time nor is it invalid today. Most studies do not include who they studied or from what population of people, which can make one study sound like the next best thing over something that is still completely valid. Take this article for example. I have been told that I stated a myth about how you should not skip breakfast. Or how you its not beneficial to eat 4-6 smaller meals compared to 3 large meals. I beg the differ. I 100% believe that these articles support my arguement on how your metabolism needs breakfast to kick start the morning and how 4-6 smaller meals are essential in losing weight. I will say though some articles do pay a small support to 3 meals a day. In the end...try both and do what works for you.

Top 10 Reasons not to skip your breakfast
Don?t Skip Breakfast to Cut Calories - Weight Management - FitFacts - American Council On Exercise(ACE)
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/food-and-nutrition/an01119
Lose Weight: Eat Breakfast

What it Takes to Lose Weight -- familydoctor.org
3 meals a day or 6 smaller meals? Experts weigh the pros and cons
10 Ways to Lose Weight Without ?Dieting?
How to Eat Smaller Portions and Still be Happy | HealthMad
 
Last edited:
I'm with you SMabry - I got slammed in my first ever post on this board b/c I gave someone the smaller/frequent meal advice. I've never done it again to avoid the barrage of "WRONG!" reply posts.

Would I recommend it to my friends and family? Absolutely. Whether it burns more or not will continue to be debated. I think that when you are trying to break bad habits and get a control of your diet that having this kind of structure is helpful.

It's worked wonders for me and I practice it.

Personally, I think that the discipline it involves tends to discourage people from wanting to do it.
 
I'd just like throw out there that for me personally I do better with fewer meals, it's just the way my body works. I'm not saying that people should switch to that, but if someone is like me and doesn't do better with more meals they shouldn't feel they have to.

So that's why I argue that you don't have to do it to keep the metabolic furnace stoked - because I'd hate for someone to be fighting against the way their body works unnecessarily.
 
SMabrey said:
It seems as though the one side minded individuals are at it again, not to mention any names.
Click to expand...

He means me I'm sure.


SMabrey said:
Only listen to what "highly paid practioners say".
Click to expand...

No, listen to what doctors who spend years learning and doing scientific studies.

SMabrey said:
Just b/c a study is 3 years old does not me it wasn't valid at the time nor is it invalid today.
Click to expand...

It may have been valid at the time but it very well could be invalid as new steps in discoveries and science opens new doors.


SMabrey said:
Most studies do not include who they studied or from what population of people, which can make one study sound like the next best thing over something that is still completely valid. Take this article for example. I have been told that I stated a myth about how you should not skip breakfast. Or how you its not beneficial to eat 4-6 smaller meals compared to 3 large meals. I beg the differ. I 100% believe that these articles support my argument on how your metabolism needs breakfast to kick start the morning and how 4-6 smaller meals are essential in losing weight.
Click to expand...

Look, this really came from the claim that you stroke your metabolism over eating smaller meals. That has been proven wrong. That doesn't mean that you don't feel better eating more or less meals cause that is personal preference.

I'm arguing the myth of many smaller meals, not the opinion that you personally prefer it.
 
Wow. What a firestorm of a thread.

Please note that NO ONE has said that eating multiple meals isn't effective. For many people the idea of eating frequently helps them to manage their hunger. For many people eating healthy snacks keeps them from gorging on junk at mealtimes. Eating frequently has many benefits for a lot of people.

What is being pointed out as FACT is that eating frequently does NOT INCREASE YOUR METABOLISM. Period. The end. That's not opinion. That's not "let's agree to disagree". That's not "I believe this is true". It simply is a cold, hard fact, measurable by science.

You can say you think it is true all you want, but you'd be just as wrong as if you insisted that the earth is flat.

That doesn't mean that eating frequently isn't a good diet plan for some. But it's NOT required (and several people in this thread *have* said that you "must" eat 5-6 times a day) and it's NOT going to increase your metabolism. You can whine about being slapped down all you want, but if you post wrong information on this site, you will get corrected. If you think it's rude to correct wrong information ... well, sorry. Not much I can do about that.
 
If something was "proven right" and I use that term loosely in 2005 lets say and then proven wrong in 2010 whats to say it won't be proven right again a few years later. The fact is you just don't know. Just because something was written doesn't mean it was true. Whether it stimulates the metabolism or not its just a healthier way too eat. You give your body more time to digest. People when eating big meals tend to stuff themselves and thats never good. Here is an actual study and result by the way showing no conclusive evidence that it stimulated the metabolism. :smash:



I eat 5 meals a day and it works so much better. It's constant energy for you.
It makes me feel better it keeps me regular and it makes me more aware of my eating. One thing is for sure though building muscle definitely boosts your metabolism and I don't care what anyone says about that.
 
Engage4Life said:
If something was "proven right" and I use that term loosely in 2005 lets say and then proven wrong in 2010 whats to say it won't be proven right again a few years later. The fact is you just don't know.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why you have to actually READ these studies and find out exactly what is being tested, how the testing is being done, why the testing is taking place and who is doing it.

Years ago, scientists and nutritionists publicy claimed that eating eggs was bad for your health. A few years after that, a different group of scientists and nutritionists publicly claimed that eating eggs was good for your health. A few years after that, a different group of scientists and nutritionists publicly claimed that eating eggs was bad for your health...again. A few years after that...SIGH...etc, etc, etc.

The science was accurate in those studies. Fact.
The science contradicted itself in those studies. Fact.

But, how can both be true? If the science is accurate, then how can the science point to two different conclusions? The reality is...it can't. The science only points in one direction - it's the scientists, nutritionists, lobbyists, marketing experts, companies, politicians (etc) that put spins on the science in order to make it look like it's heading in a different direction. For whatever reason, the people behind these studies decide to put their own personal spin on the science that they are providing to the public. Money, political gain, personal vendetta, etc - those are all reasons as to why science seems to have different results when studies are publicly released. It's not the science that's flawed - it's the people who publicize it.

Look at one of the big stories from recent years - high fructose corn syrup.

For the past couple of years, people have debated the health risks involved with consuming high fructose corn syrup. According to the general consensus, what do we, as the public, feel about high fructose corn syrup? We think it's liquid cancer. We are so caught up into the hype of high fructose corn syrup being 'bad for us', that we (as the general public) are refusing to look at the scientific facts behind high fructose corn syrup. So, just because we are an easily influenced and panicky people in this country, we grasp onto the idea that high fructose corn syrup is evil. And, even if we are provided with scientific fact that proves otherwise, we will still hold onto our belief that high fructose corn syrup is evil.

As Jericho said, dieting to some is like religion. Science is disregarded and opinion acts as fact.

With everything in life, most of us just buy into whatever scheme fits our personality the best. If it is more suitable and convenient for a person to say "High fructose corn syrup is the Devil", then that's what that person will say. Maybe they have a family history of diabetes, maybe they have children whom they are overprotective with...who knows? Whatever their reason, those people aren't looking at scientific facts when it comes to health - they rely on their poorly based, individually flawed and biased opinions. And, as fact has it (ironically), opinions are not facts. Only facts are facts.
 
If something was "proven right" and I use that term loosely in 2005 lets say and then proven wrong in 2010 whats to say it won't be proven right again a few years later.
Click to expand...
So by that logic, it is possible that it might be "proven" that the Earth isn't round and is exactly flat, so we should all quit agreeing that the Earth is round?

No, sorry, that's false logic.

Besides, the whole "raises your metabolism" thing was never "proven right" to begin with. If you read the articles I linked, all of them point out the the original studies were flawed because: "often the research involved extremes, like comparing the effects of two or three large daily meals with those of a dozen or more snacks" and other similar issues.

As science advances and methods advance, our understanding advances.
 
KaraCooks said:
So by that logic, it is possible that it might be "proven" that the Earth isn't round and is exactly flat, so we should all quit agreeing that the Earth is round?

No, sorry, that's false logic.

Besides, the whole "raises your metabolism" thing was never "proven right" to begin with. If you read the articles I linked, all of them point out the the original studies were flawed because: "often the research involved extremes, like comparing the effects of two or three large daily meals with those of a dozen or more snacks" and other similar issues.

As science advances and methods advance, our understanding advances.
Click to expand...

your whole argument is flawed lol

Your one sided black and white out of context example as the Earth being round therefore all discoveries found to be false are therefor true is a ridiculous argument with no basis.

My logic simply states if one thing was proven true at one point in time and then proven false in a later point of time then doesn't it stand that all truths may have a possibility of being proven false at a later date? There are so many examples of it in the history of mankind its absurd.

Besides if you do your research it was never even suggested that the world was flat. Greeks as early as 500BC were calling it a dome.

Arn't there enough people out there flaming stuff do you really need to join in?
 
Engage4Life said:
your whole argument is flawed lol

Your one sided black and white out of context example as the Earth being round therefore all discoveries found to be false are therefor true is a ridiculous argument with no basis.

My logic simply states if one thing was proven true at one point in time and then proven false in a later point of time then doesn't it stand that all truths may have a possibility of being proven false at a later date? There are so many examples of it in the history of mankind its absurd.

Besides if you do your research it was never even suggested that the world was flat. Greeks as early as 500BC were calling it a dome.

Arn't there enough people out there flaming stuff do you really need to join in?
Click to expand...

^^^^^
This is a perfect example of people who only choose to listen to their side of the argument.

Kara's point about the earth being round/flat was a perfect illustration as to why your logic is flawed. Yet, you chose to attempt to laugh it away, as if her point of view was idiotic. Even though her example was spot on (and you know it) you choose to ignore it's validity.

When you contribute to and support the oppositions argument, it makes their job a lot easier. Bravo.

Back to the issue at hand (and this is directed towards everybody in the thread) - Kara has even said that nobody has stated that eating small meals isn't effective. She has simply provided information that disproves the belief that eating small meals raises your metabolism. Instead of everybody grasping for Straw Men in their arguments against her information, try providing the forum with some factual information of your own - factual information that supports the idea that eating small meals will raise your metabolism. Instead of the usual - empty arguments that have no basis for validity - let's try providing each other with some actual proof, ok?
 
lol Chi you do realize that you agreed with my logic in your previous post and now disagree with it in your new post....

I even posted documentation that eating 5 meals had no effect on metabolism. I must say this is a strange forum I don't see many people really trying to help just people bashing other people. Well guess what I got skinny I lost the weight what I did works and is working for tens of thousands why is what I did wrong lol

I was coming here to help others and to hopefully inspire instead I get bashing moderators and confused ninja turtles I'm out.
 
Last edited:
I think my job here is done. :)

Thanks Chef!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top