The 6 worst pieces of weight-loss adviceThere's a world of weight-loss advice out there, and it's hard to know what to trust. Here, we've collected six pieces of weight-loss advice you don't want to follow, with tips on what to do instead.

By Kat Tancock

Healthy, long-lasting weight loss is hard. Don't make it any harder by following bad advice. We've scoured magazines and the Internet for the six worst pieces of weight-loss advice we could find – and given you practical alternatives.

Bad weight-loss advice #1: Eat five meals a day
Why it doesn't work: Assuming 1,800 calories a day, this means each meal would have to be 360 calories, about the amount in just one of our Morning Glory Muffins. But for most of us, eating this way means feeling not quite full all day long – a recipe for disaster when snacks show up in the office or your kids leave food on their plates. Plus, it means eating out of sync with other people.

What's better: Eat three larger meals, leaving yourself room for a couple of 150-calorie snacks. Schedule your snacks based on when your cravings usually strike, and make sure to include the odd treat to keep your taste buds happy.

Bad weight-loss advice #2: Don’t eat after 7 p.m.
Why it doesn’t work: Assuming you're eating reasonable quantities of healthy foods throughout the day, there's no reason you can't have an evening snack, even if it's something sugary or salty. There's no evidence that ingesting calories later in the day makes you gain weight. Plus, if you're among those who go to the gym right after work, when else are you supposed to eat?


What's better: Plan your eating schedule according to your lifestyle. If you work out or chase after kids in the evening, you may need more fuel at that time of day; if you spend your post-work hours communing with your couch, make lunch bigger and have a light dinner. But if you're prone to overeating at night, to curb mindless eating try brushing your teeth when you decide you're done for the day.


Bad weight-loss advice #3: Don't eat carbs
Why it doesn't work: Well, for one thing, your body needs carbs. "They are vital for providing energy for our bodies and brains," note Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin, authors of healthy-eating guides Skinny Bitch and Skinny Bitch in the Kitch. By avoiding carbs, you're avoiding a whole range of healthy foods that provide necessary nutrients to your body, like vegetables, fruits and whole grains. And even if a low-carb diet helps you lose weight in the short term, it's not a sustainable long-term solution, and may lower your energy levels, leaving you less able to maintain healthy amounts of exercise.

What's better: Be smart about carbs. Choose whole grains over refined, eat plenty of fruits and vegetables and make sure to include healthy protein sources in your meals for optimal nutrition.

Bad weight-loss advice #4: Don't eat fat
Why it doesn’t work: Your body needs fat just as much as it needs carbs and protein. Fat makes food taste better and helps keep you satisfied. And low-fat on food labels often translates into high-sugar, which certainly isn't going to help you lose weight.

What's better: Choose high-quality fats and don't eat too many of them. The best way to do this is to eat foods that contain healthy fats, such as fish, nuts and seeds, olive oil and avocado. Cut back on foods high in unhealthy fats, such as butter, lard (and products containing these, such as cookies and pastries), fatty meats and fatty cheeses and dairy products.


Bad weight-loss advice #5: Trust food packaging
Why it doesn't work: Low carb, trans fat free, low calorie – packaged foods are laden with these labels meant to convince you that they're healthy choices. (Low-carb ketchup? How much are you eating of it, anyway?) But the claims manufacturers are allowed to make are complex and not always intuitive, and a product low in one bad-for-you ingredient is often made more flavourful by pumping up quantities of another. Besides, a trans-fat-free cookie is still a cookie.

What's better: Instead of trusting what the packaging tells you, trust your common sense, say Freedman and Barnouin. "Read the ingredients," they write. "If you plan on eating something, you should know exactly what it is." Watch for added sugar (including glucose, corn syrup and other sugar substitutes), unhealthy fats and fillers. Once you've read the ingredients and the calorie count (don't forget to check the suggested serving size), you may decide you'd rather have an orange.

Bad weight-loss advice #6: Eat lots of soup
Why it doesn't work: Well, this one does – sometimes. The truth is, it depends on the soup. Just don't assume that all soups are created equal, especially when you're eating out. Avoid anything creamy or with tons of oil floating on top, and if you're eating at a restaurant that provides nutrition information for its menus, find out exactly how healthy that cup of soup is.

What's better: Broth-based soups, or soups made creamy through the addition of pureed vegetables or grains, are low in calorie density, meaning they're filling but still low-calorie. They make an excellent option for a light meal (serve with bread or crackers) or starter. For the healthiest picks, make vegetable- and legume-heavy soup at home, and pack it in a Thermos for lunch.


Canadian Living : Health : Nutrition : The 6 worst pieces of weight-loss advice (http://www.canadianliving.com/health/nutrition/the_6_worst_pieces_of_weight_loss_advice_3.php)


Don't shoot the messanger :) My favorite being the "don't eat after 7pm".

Hopefully no one else posted it.

Bad weight-loss advice #1: Eat five meals a day
Why it doesn't work: Assuming 1,800 calories a day, this means each meal would have to be 360 calories, about the amount in just one of our Morning Glory Muffins. But for most of us, eating this way means feeling not quite full all day long – a recipe for disaster when snacks show up in the office or your kids leave food on their plates. Plus, it means eating out of sync with other people.

What's better: Eat three larger meals, leaving yourself room for a couple of 150-calorie snacks. Schedule your snacks based on when your cravings usually strike, and make sure to include the odd treat to keep your taste buds happy.

some people can be very successful on the 5 a day plan - it didn't work for me but - it does work for some -to say that it's bad weight loss advice is a little too one size fits all for me...

People need to find what works for them..
Bad weight-loss advice #5: Trust food packaging
Why it doesn't work: Low carb, trans fat free, low calorie – packaged foods are laden with these labels meant to convince you that they're healthy choices. (Low-carb ketchup? How much are you eating of it, anyway?) But the claims manufacturers are allowed to make are complex and not always intuitive, and a product low in one bad-for-you ingredient is often made more flavourful by pumping up quantities of another. Besides, a trans-fat-free cookie is still a cookie.

What's better: Instead of trusting what the packaging tells you, trust your common sense, say Freedman and Barnouin. "Read the ingredients," they write. "If you plan on eating something, you should know exactly what it is." Watch for added sugar (including glucose, corn syrup and other sugar substitutes), unhealthy fats and fillers. Once you've read the ingredients and the calorie count (don't forget to check the suggested serving size), you may decide you'd rather have an orange.

This one is my favorite.. in my other life -i'd get really hung up on fat free/sugar free/whatever free foods -thinking somewhere in the dark recesses of my brain that the calories didn't count... Yeah dumbass... real food tastes so m uch better - if you have to use a little less -then so be it... I'm not gonna be a good looking corpse I don't need the preservatives and other non real food added crap in my food.. real only please.

Looks like pretty solid article. Thanks for sharing!

i eat 4-6 times per day. i don't work outside the home so i'm sure that is part of why it works so well for me. it wouldn't be as easy if i were at work all day.

Bad weight-loss advice #1: Eat five meals a day
Why it doesn't work: Assuming 1,800 calories a day, this means each meal would have to be 360 calories, about the amount in just one of our Morning Glory Muffins. But for most of us, eating this way means feeling not quite full all day long – a recipe for disaster when snacks show up in the office or your kids leave food on their plates. Plus, it means eating out of sync with other people.

What's better: Eat three larger meals, leaving yourself room for a couple of 150-calorie snacks. Schedule your snacks based on when your cravings usually strike, and make sure to include the odd treat to keep your taste buds happy.
I eat about 5 mini-meals a day and doing that is exactly what keeps me feeling full throughout the day. I can't stand the huge food-high and then low of eating three big meals a day- not only that, but many people who are losing weight that I know agree. This one shouldn't have been in that article, especially put so black-and-white as it was.

~Rina

based on my experiences:

Bad weight-loss advice #1: Eat five meals a day
true. i can never eat 5 meals a day. i'm fine with the 3. i don't have the time to be spacing meals out.

Bad weight-loss advice #2: Don’t eat after 7 p.m.
also true. you won't gain weight but if you're keeping really close track, you might retain water the next day but not over time.

Bad weight-loss advice #3: Don't eat carbs
also true. i can't go without carbs. i never understood how people could. when i did atkins before, the fourth day on the diet, while i was working out, i passed out. it's from not getting the energy that you need to work out. carbs are like fuel. you need a certain amount of them a day.
it's just much easier and you can count on sticking to calorie intake.

Bad weight-loss advice #4: Don't eat fat
another true one. healthy fats, such as fish, nuts and seeds, olive oil and avocado are great. only very few people can go on a no fat diet all their life. you need it. fat is fuel too.

Bad weight-loss advice #5: Trust food packaging
true true. there's so much other ingredients and junk and oils put into that stuff. it's so much better to eat natural stuff like fruits and veggies and you get better benefits too.

Bad weight-loss advice #6: Eat lots of soup
i beg to differ on this, but not so much. it all depends on the the sodium intake. if you're choosing ones low in calories and sodium then it'll promote weight loss. most soups are so high in sodium, it's ridiculous. you'll retain so much water, you'll think you ate a whole buffet when you step on the scale.

there are so many myths out there.

A line of logic I really cannot stand:

Bad weight-loss advice #1: Eat five meals a day
Why it doesn't work: Assuming 1,800 calories a day, this means each meal would have to be 360 calories, about the amount in just one of our Morning Glory Muffins. But for most of us, eating this way means feeling not quite full all day long – a recipe for disaster when snacks show up in the office or your kids leave food on their plates. Plus, it means eating out of sync with other people.

What's better: Eat three larger meals, leaving yourself room for a couple of 150-calorie snacks. Schedule your snacks based on when your cravings usually strike, and make sure to include the odd treat to keep your taste buds happy.

This is akin to saying that exercising is bad advice because most people give up/don't follow through. While many small meals a day is not some panacea that will bring everyone on the planet down 6 pant sizes, the reasoning behind criticizing it is just bad.

Really I agree with a lot of what they have to say, but blaming the advice given for people's inability to follow through on it has got to go. Not everyone is going to be able, or have the time to do it, but that doesn't mean it's bad advice, and certainly not one of the 6 worst.

My understanding of the theory behind the 5-6 meals a day is it keeps up your metabolism.

Humans are grazing animals according to our teeth, stomach and long small intestine. We are built to go field to field eating or grazing.

If you are eating the proper foods, complex carbs, then it takes about 2-3 hours to move through your stomach. When you go more than 4 - 5 hours your physical brain (sub consious) says "dude were starving must be a famine start storing fat". This then triggers the "starvation mode" which slows down your metabolism until you can start eating again when you get to the next field or whatever.

After we start eating again it takes a few meals to calm down the starvation trigger and speed up the metabolism again. The physical brain wants proof that there really is a good supply of food before he/she recinds the order to stop storing food (as fat).

The snacking side works well with the theory above, but I don't like snacking. Our culture is a culture based on snacking, music, tv, ... When we eat snacks it screws up the digestive cocktail in the stomach, causing undigested food into the digestive track.

More importantly we are creatures of habit and snacking kills the eating routine. When we go into automatic mode we usually keep doing what we have in the past. With a good routine of eating only meals and no snacking we keep on track without much if any effort.

I think everything else in your post is spot on, though.

Thanks, great post.

I'm not gonna be a good looking corpse I don't need the preservatives and other non real food added crap in my food.. real only please.

I'm on a calorie counter site called Calorie Counter Plus and it has an analysis page where you can see the percentages of fat, carbs, etc. Neat, huh?

It has a section for OTHER. I thought it ended with fat, carbs, alcohol, and protein. What the hell is other?

I don't know, but I ate some when I got Domino's the other night. Sheemoney!

My understanding of the theory behind the 5-6 meals a day is it keeps up your metabolism.

True in terms of overall calories, but doesn't it depend on what you use as a snack? Modern processed food snacks are very "more-ish" and portion control may go out the window.

Your point about TV and snacking is very true - a between meals snack to stave off hunger must be portion controlled ( I get people to measure out their snacks before they get hungry) and having the bag of peanuts on your lap while watching TV is not going to be a controlled portion!

So when you follow the weight loss advice you have to

read between the lines and
be honest about your own behaviour
.

My understanding of the theory behind the 5-6 meals a day is it keeps up your metabolism.

That's a popular folklore.

Humans are grazing animals according to our teeth, stomach and long small intestine. We are built to go field to field eating or grazing.

If you are eating the proper foods, complex carbs, then it takes about 2-3 hours to move through your stomach. When you go more than 4 - 5 hours your physical brain (sub consious) says "dude were starving must be a famine start storing fat". This then triggers the "starvation mode" which slows down your metabolism until you can start eating again when you get to the next field or whatever.

This is a gross simplification of how the body actually responds.

The starvation response doesn't 'turn on' every few hours b/c you don't eat.

After we start eating again it takes a few meals to calm down the starvation trigger and speed up the metabolism again. The physical brain wants proof that there really is a good supply of food before he/she recinds the order to stop storing food (as fat).

Care to share your evidence?

Bad weight-loss advice #2: Don’t eat after 7 p.m.
Why it doesn’t work: Assuming you're eating reasonable quantities of healthy foods throughout the day, there's no reason you can't have an evening snack, even if it's something sugary or salty. There's no evidence that ingesting calories later in the day makes you gain weight. Plus, if you're among those who go to the gym right after work, when else are you supposed to eat?

i always thought that the reason you dont eat in the evenings is because

a: you metabolism slows down when you sleep, there fore your body will turn more of the food into fat rather than energy,
b: when you sleep you arnt burning fat (or very very little) so the food has to go somewhere
c: if you eat later your body has to be active to digest the food, which i believe can cause lack of sleep

i dont know how true any of this is but it seems logical. the version i have heard is dont eat 2 hours before you go to bed, i think 7pm was only every supposed to be a guideline. i could be totally wrong of course :D

a: you metabolism slows down when you sleep, there fore your body will turn more of the food into fat rather than energy,

It's the net that matters.

If you're in a net caloric deficit, you aren't going to be storing fat.

b: when you sleep you arnt burning fat (or very very little) so the food has to go somewhere

Do you know what basal metabolic rate is?

If not, do a quick search.

This accounts for the large majority of energy expenditure and it certainly doesn't go away when we sleep.

The way I understand it is complex carbs determine the fuel your body burns. Green Clean fuel (fat) vs Dirty Fossil fuel (sugar).

I'm sure you are right, portion controlled snacks are better than non controlled snacks.

It's my opionion that snacking does more harm than good.

My plan is to create good routines and habits that once installed you don't think about. You go about your day and your subconcious handles your eating habits. You check in by regular weighings to make sure your routines are still working correctly. Your subconcious handles portion control, meal plans friction free.

Instead of your subconcious taking the day off you put it to work, for you.

I feel that snacking hurts this routine.

Al least that is how I see it.

P.S. I like your advice at the end of your post.

That's a popular folklore.
This is a gross simplification of how the body actually responds.

The starvation response doesn't 'turn on' every few hours b/c you don't eat.
Care to share your evidence?

That is the way I understand it works.

Of course it is a simplication of how it works. There is no evidence of a "physical brain", that is part of the Triun brain theory. But it is a generally accepted principle.

There is no evidence of a border between the United States and Canada but the border does exist and certain things happen if crossed.

There is no evidence that gravity exists, yet we see the results of it every day.

Testing shows that in all mammals control of the metabolic rate is not in concious control, that leaves subconsious control.

How do you understand that metabolism works?

Please include your evidence of "The starvation response doesn't 'turn on' every few hours b/c you don't eat." Since "That's a popular folklore." and I agree it is popular please include your evidence of this statement also.

Thanks in advance

The way I understand it is complex carbs determine the fuel your body burns. Green Clean fuel (fat) vs Dirty Fossil fuel (sugar).

The amount of a given fuel used by the body is directly related to the quantity of that substrate at the time.

The body prefers to use glucose.

Carbs breakdown into glucose.

I'm not sure where you're getting the Green Clean vs. Dirty Fossil analogy?

It's my opionion that snacking does more harm than good.

You're running into the problem of overgeneralizing a very complex and individual topic.

I know people who do well with fasting strategies. I know people who do well with nibbling. I know others who do well with a structured, rigid meal plan.

I've tried it all on myself, and have had the great privilege of 'experimenting' with a lot of people.

The bottom line is there is no One Strategy that is universally harmful. It all comes down to the individual response to a given strategy.

My plan is to create good routines and habits that once installed you don't think about. You go about your day and your subconcious handles your eating habits. You check in by regular weighings to make sure your routines are still working correctly. Your subconcious handles portion control, meal plans friction free.

1. How do you plan going about the installation of said habits?

2. How do you account for individual variation in hunger patterns and response to feeding?

3. A response in scale weight doesn't always = a diet is 'working.'

Instead of your subconcious taking the day off you put it to work, for you.

I'm a firm believer in the power of the mind. But the subconscious doesn't control all the biological mechanisms associated with human metabolism.

That is the way I understand it works.

Of course it is a simplication of how it works. There is no evidence of a "physical brain", that is part of the Triun brain theory. But it is a generally accepted principle.

There is no evidence of a border between the United States and Canada but the border does exist and certain things happen if crossed.

There is no evidence that gravity exists, yet we see the results of it every day.

Testing shows that in all mammals control of the metabolic rate is not in concious control, that leaves subconsious control.

How do you understand that metabolism works?

Please include your evidence of "The starvation response doesn't 'turn on' every few hours b/c you don't eat." Since "That's a popular folklore." and I agree it is popular please include your evidence of this statement also.

Thanks in advance

So you present a claim.

I ask for evidence.

Yet, the burden or proof shifts to my shoulders, lol.

How about this....

How many people have you successfully walked through permanent weight losses?

Of those people, how many people were facing hurdles such as food addiction, advanced obesity, metabolic disease, etc?

You are completely ignoring the biology of it all and relying on the brain to fix a problem that's been handed down to us through evolution that is clashing with societal transformation.

Dude, WOW relax, this is a discussion.

It's going to be alright.

Try and follow me.

No one knows how gravity works. No one has seen gravity. We can not prove gravity without seeing results. They are building an atom smasher in France and Denmark to try to see it.

When cows are allowed to graze all summer they become lean and their metabolic rate increase. During the winter when fed hay on 8 hour intervals their metabolic rate decreases and they become fat.

Lab rats experience the same thing.

Cows, lab rats and humans are all mammals.

These are results, like gravity, of something that exists, that we can not prove without results. This is a theory, just like the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity (atom bomb).

Now it is your turn to share.

Relax, you can't get this wrong. There are no wrong answers. Ready?

1) How do you think that metabolism works?
2) How do you know, or is it a theory also?
3) How do you know that metabolism doesn't work the way I described?

Relax, this isn't a test. Just give us your best shot at explaining it. No one is going to make you wrong, you're okay. This is an exchange of ideas, we just want to know what you are thinking. Okay?

Remember, no wrong answers, Okay?

Try it, you'll see it will be fun. Don't think so hard, man.

The amount of a given fuel used by the body is directly related to the quantity of that substrate at the time.

The body prefers to use glucose.

Carbs breakdown into glucose.

I'm not sure where you're getting the Green Clean vs. Dirty Fossil analogy?



You're running into the problem of overgeneralizing a very complex and individual topic.

I know people who do well with fasting strategies. I know people who do well with nibbling. I know others who do well with a structured, rigid meal plan.

I've tried it all on myself, and have had the great privilege of 'experimenting' with a lot of people.

The bottom line is there is no One Strategy that is universally harmful. It all comes down to the individual response to a given strategy.



1. How do you plan going about the installation of said habits?

2. How do you account for individual variation in hunger patterns and response to feeding?

3. A response in scale weight doesn't always = a diet is 'working.'



I'm a firm believer in the power of the mind. But the subconscious doesn't control all the biological mechanisms associated with human metabolism.

Great questions,

I will answer them tomorrow. I am going to watch American Chopper. Talk with you tomorrow.

Dude, WOW relax, this is a discussion.

It's going to be alright.

That's an interesting remark.

With the facts in mind that a) you don't know me, b) you don't know my writing style and c) you can't read 'tone' over the net... I'd say this is a case of assuming something exists that doesn't.

I'm relaxed, so I'm quite perplexed by what could be WOWing you. Stick to the facts and don't worry about me. Those fallacious tactics don't fly around here.

Try and follow me.

Let me put my super-duper thinking cap on!!!!111

No one knows how gravity works. No one has seen gravity. We can not prove gravity without seeing results. They are building an atom smasher in France and Denmark to see if they can see it.

Oh joy, a ridiculous attempt to rationalize your way out of this by testing my understanding of science and enlighten me about the differences between a hypothesis and a theory and prove that falsifiability does in fact exist when it's nonexistence is something I never claimed.

Let me just break this down for you so far:

You: The starvation response kicks in every 2-3 hours so it would be ideal to eat in a pattern that minimizes this.

Me: No, you are oversimplifying the human body.

You: Gravity is theorized to exist but it can't be seen so we don't know if it's real. Metabolism is the same, so prove to me it's existence.

That's about where we stand now, I think you will agree.

Now for the next "Me:"

What do you know about parsimony? Up to this point, it doesn't seem like a whole heck of a lot.

You're right, all these theories are falsifiable. The theory of gravity was falsified by Einstein. Any theory is falsifiable. You can have a cookie or a trophy if that's what you're after. I haven't seen anyone suggest the contrary but you seem pretty stuck on the idea that it came up.

I can't prove to you that metabolism = X. Your sophistry is trying to paint me into a corner by asking silly questions that are not answerable in a way that would satisfy an end to the debate using your skewed standards since all we're working off of is theoretical. What it comes down to in a case such as this then is you present a case and I present a case.

Parsimony plays a large role at this point in the eyes and minds of anyone who thinks critically.

You've repeated your case exactly twice now with nothing special. As noted above, a bit of sophistry mixed with some lame attempt to suggest all mammals respond the same to a given stressor.

My case is quite simple. I use logic and critical analysis to deduce a hypothesis of what happens in different situations; in this case we'll say 3 vs. 6 meals.

I overlay this with my education of human physiology and the net result is confidence in my working model.

In the real world, I'm able to observe the following:

1) People respond differently to different meal patterns. Some thrive on frequent feedings. Others thrive on infrequent feedings.

2) I've reached single digit body fat levels a number of times using varying tactics... frequent and infrequent feedings. In neither case did a starvation response kick in intraday hinting an efficiency in our metabolic regulation systems to the extent that you suggest exists.

3) I've had the opportunity to apply these same varying tactics to a respectable sample size given my career. Net outcomes were similar further solidifying my hypothesis.

4) Science is shabby in this area, but it exists where no difference is observed between frequent vs. infrequent feedings as it relates to metabolic rate. A few exist below:

Entrez PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9155494&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum)

Entrez PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=7076516&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_docsum)

Entrez PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=3592618&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum)

Entrez PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8383639&query_hl=22&itool=pubmed_docsum)

Entrez PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8399092&query_hl=23&itool=pubmed_docsum)

5. We have interesting stuff emerging with intermittent fasting. One guy making some noise, of many, can be seen here... Leangains - Intermittent Fasting for Strength Training and Fat Loss (http://www.leangains.com). It's not something I personally subscribe to... however it further solidifies the idea that a) the horrid starvation response isn't as 'reactive' as you suggest and b) different strokes for different folks... the human body doesn't respond universally identical to the stress of hypocaloric eating.

6. You can do yourself some good and educate yourself about human metabolic response to starvation. I'll even spoon feed you:

The Biology of Malnutrition (http://www.nutrisci.wisc.edu/ns350/PPTs/BioMalnutritionP1_files/frame.htm#slide0022.htm)

7. While your reading, you might as well check this out too:

Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor)

8. And this:

Ignoratio elenchi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi)

I'm sure I could come up with more but what's the point? I have human data suggesting the starvation response doesn't respond as you explain. Data that is observable and repeatable on a consistent basis across various populations. You have some wanking about theories and falsifiability and some studies on cows and rats (which you didn't present by the way). I'm certainly down for a good debate but so far you aren't really bringing anything to the table here. If you expect to sway my opinion or those of the masses reading this... I suggest you show something a little more concrete. In the meantime, your sophistry is equivalent to me saying, "The sky is red, prove me wrong."

That's not any way to prove a point.

A theory explains or models a real world observation, right?

You stated that the metabolism slows down or the starvation response turns on every 2-3 hours if not 'stoked' by eating more food. Give me a real world, observable instance where this occurs in humans please. It doesn't have to be peer-reviewed research... simply observation will suffice at this point.

Your whole crackpot, idealistic approach to explaining this shits the bed since you don't seem to have real world experience with a) working with people and weight loss IN THE REAL WORLD and b) the fact that people have lost weight and looked and functioned great eating 2 meals per day and others have done the same eating 6 meals per day.

When cows are allowed to graze all summer they become lean and their metabolic rate increase. During the winter when fed hay on 8 hour intervals their metabolic rate decreases and they become fat.

Lab rats experience the same thing.

Funnily enough I thought we were talking about humans. When did the subject change?

Cows, lab rats and humans are all mammals.


Haha, you don't do much research do you?

You are seriously misinformed and I don't mean disrespect at all.

Do some research on Leptin just as one (big) example of how not all mammals are created equal.

These are results, like gravity, of something that exists, that we can not prove without results.

I never said the starvation response doesn't exist. I also never claimed that it's exact workings can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Assumption is the mother of all F-ups and you are littered with them. I simply implied that based on what we know to be true paired with what's observable in the real world (results) we can make a very good wager that human metabolism doesn't function in a way similar to your proposal.

Now it is your turn to share.

I've shared nothing less than you've shared.

Stop trying to dictate the discussion.

Relax, you can't get this wrong. There are no wrong answers. Ready?

1) How do you think that metabolism works?
2) How do you know, or is it a theory also?
3) How do you know that metabolism doesn't work the way I described?


You've got to be kidding me. I'm sure in your world this seems like you're destroying me. You are mentally equipped beyond any to deal with in depth conversation about the subject at hand.

The only thing you're doing though is sounding arrogant with no leg to stand on.

Relax, this isn't a test. Just give us your best shot at explaining it. No one is going to make you wrong, you're okay. This is an exchange of ideas, we just want to know what you are thinking. Okay?

You can't be serious.

If you're seriously interested on my take regarding the adaptational responses to underfeeding the human body, do a search for posts made by me with the words starvation and response in them.

I've explained this in detail more times than I care to repeat on this forum. Your tactics of debate are not enticing in the least and your incessant need to control the discussion doesn't rub me in a way that solicits a response to your ridiculous questions.

Try it, you'll see it will be fun. Don't think so hard, man.

Thinking and critical thought/analysis is what helps me not sound like you do in this thread...

I highly doubt I'm going to start taking advice from you.

I'm relaxed, so I'm quite perplexed by what could be WOWing you.


You do seem very relaxed. What was I thinking?

No doubt about it you definitely can use a search engine. GREAT!

At first I thought this was a waste of time.

I thought about it and tried to find the positive. Well you did try.


You've got to be kidding me. I'm sure in your world this seems like you're destroying me. You are mentally equipped beyond any to deal with in depth conversation about the subject at hand.


In my world, I'm NOT trying to destroy you sounds like you need a hug. Okay you have proved I'm an idiot and you are brilliant. You win. No problem. Thanks for pointing that out to me. You are the subject matter expert on metabolism.

Instead of the linked to, copy and pasted jibberish, distill this down for me, please. Couple of paragraphs writing in your words this time. Like normal people speak.

Include YOUR ideas, YOUR hopes, YOUR dreams, YOUR desires. Keep it simple for the idiots on this site like me. Include your experiences, your case studies, your knowledge and wisdom. Have it flow from one logical idea to the next this time.

The true sign of genius is someone that can take a difficult subject and explain it to a common person. That would impress the hell out me alot more than disjointed non descrip words copied from some doctors website.

I already gave you my thoughts. You remember them, they were so easy to understand you made fun of them and linked them. Now it's your turn to share. I'm sure you have some knowledge on the subject. I will bet you will surprise yourself.

I've seen some of your posts. Bright, articulate, insightful well thought out. I know you can do this. Dude you could get the Nobel for this. Seriously, Einstein was a patent clerk. You just never know where life will lead you. Where opportunity comes from.

It will take some effort from you though.

Take some time get your notes together, use your expert knowledge, distill this down to two paragraphs 80-100 words. Use normal language spend the weekend on the search engines pulling info to help you. Make it like an executive summary. Not like a term paper.

1) How do YOU think metabolism works?

It would be great if the people of this site had access to your knowledge on this subject. In a manner that is easily understood. Something we can put to use in our lives. If we have questions then you can start the search engine links. Let's hold off on them until we get your basic ideas in a form that someone can comprehend.


I highly doubt I'm going to start taking advice from you.

I hope this is a promise.

iv been member of this forum for less than 12 hours, i hope this isnt the general kind of stuff ill be hearing from the posts. considering this is supposed to be a place to help each other loose weight it seems be the cause of alot of stress, maybe you should both take a time out....and BREATH :D

I agree, this isn't working.

Nothing good can come from this from this point forward.

iv been member of this forum for less than 12 hours, i hope this isnt the general kind of stuff ill be hearing from the posts. considering this is supposed to be a place to help each other loose weight it seems be the cause of alot of stress, maybe you should both take a time out....and BREATH :D

Hi dave and welcome. I can assure you that it is not the usual banter around here. We usually get along quite well and try our best to help and support one another. However as you can see in this thread, anytime you are dealing with complex (and sometimes unproven) physiology and biology an argument will break out. The weight loss community has a lot of oposing ideas and philosophies and sometimes passionate people butt heads. No biggy. It is the interwebz after all. Stick around, I am sure it will grow on you.

Hi dave and welcome. I can assure you that it is not the usual banter around here. We usually get along quite well and try our best to help and support one another. However as you can see in this thread, anytime you are dealing with complex (and sometimes unproven) physiology and biology an argument will break out. The weight loss community has a lot of oposing ideas and philosophies and sometimes passionate people butt heads. No biggy. It is the interwebz after all. Stick around, I am sure it will grow on you.

not a problem for me, was just thinking stress causes weight gain :D

not a problem for me, was just thinking stress causes weight gain :D

Very true. We should all do 10 burpees now to counteract the stress we have been subjugated to.

Very true. We should all do 10 burpees now to counteract the stress we have been subjugated to.

lol :D true

*in a half lord of the fishes posture*

Finally, some calm. All right, big breath out whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Much better.

Another bad dieting tactic: don't keep trying to do a diet that's not working for you. Even if you're sure it's good diet (nutritious, well-balanced, doesn't leave you hungry, etc.). I'm having a lot of success since I finally gave up trying to prove Weight Watchers works and started counting calories (please don't throw traffic cones at me noncounters, I'm mathematically minded).

*in a half lord of the fishes posture*

Finally, some calm. All right, big breath out whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Much better.

Another bad dieting tactic: don't keep trying to do a diet that's not working for you. Even if you're sure it's good diet (nutritious, well-balanced, doesn't leave you hungry, etc.). I'm having a lot of success since I finally gave up trying to prove Weight Watchers works and started counting calories (please don't throw traffic cones at me noncounters, I'm mathematically minded).

I believe that is sound advice. I also believe you made the correct decision. Counting calories IMO is the most foolproof and effective way to ensure weight loss (and gain depending on goals).

You: The starvation response kicks in every 2-3 hours so it would be ideal to eat in a pattern that minimizes this.

Me: No, you are oversimplifying the human body.


I didn't have time to fully respond the other night. On the road, work and all. Long last 3 days. Wed 14hrs, Thur 18 hrs and Fri 12 hrs.

My actual quote.

When you go more than 4 - 5 hours your physical brain (sub consious) says "dude were starving must be a famine start storing fat".

Below are some search engine results I have from the more trusted sites on the web. Sites like WebMD & MSNBC. If you are interested in a more through explaination of these theories Dr Robert Young is doing some cutting edge work on this. He was nominated by the United Nations as the person that has contributed most to nutrition and health.

I've included the links here with the supporting text cut and pasted.

Can you really change your metabolism? - Chew On This - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14802091/)

Don't skip meals

Space meals 3-4 hours apart. That way you have enough energy throughout the day and you'll be free of the headaches, hunger pangs or mood swings you get when you're famished.

Eating erratically signals the body to burn slower and conserve fat. This is why the law student who has been skipping meals is not losing weight on 1,200 calories. She would be better off having smaller, balanced meals and snacks throughout the day.


Make the Most of Your Metabolism (http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/guide/make-most-your-metabolism?page=2)

"When you put too many hours between meals, your metabolism actually slows down to compensate," says Kimball.
But what really works is "Eat more often, and you'll lose more weight." Small, but frequent, meals help keep your metabolism in high gear, and that means you'll burn more calories overall
"When you put too many hours between meals, your metabolism actually slows down to compensate," says Kimball.


How to Speed Up Metabolism (http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/calories/burning_calories/boost_metabolism.htm)

8 Ways to Speed Up Your Metabolism

Eat little and often - there's evidence that eating small, regular meals throughout the day, rather than one or two large meals, may help to keep your metabolism ticking over. Surprisingly, around 10 percent of the calories we use each day go on digesting and absorbing food - so the more times you eat, the greater this effect is likely to be.

Increase metabolism, Speed up metabolism,metabolism boosters,Basal Metabolic Rate (http://www.fatfreekitchen.com/weightloss/metabolism.html)
Metabolism Boosters

To boost metabolism, do not skip any meals. Eat 5-6 small meals during the day. Starving will slow down your metabolism


Check out the work of Dr. Robert Young who has been doing tremendous work on microbiology. Amazing stuff. His book "The phMiracle for Weight Loss" goes into detail on the microbiology of metabolism.

Oh yeah on the subconcious brain. Below is a link that directs you to a description on Triun brain theory. This describes how the subconcious (2 brains) are running amuck without supervision. The physical (lizard) brain is the one I believe you were questioning.


The Three Brains (http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Three-Brain-Theory&id=719704)

However what most people don't know is that the other 2 brains are actually more powerful and a lot of the time make our decisions for us rather than the logical brain,

You: The starvation response kicks in every 2-3 hours so it would be ideal to eat in a pattern that minimizes this.

Me: No, you are oversimplifying the human body.


I didn't have time to fully respond the other night. On the road, work and all. Long last 3 days. Wed 14hrs, Thur 18 hrs and Fri 12 hrs.

My actual quote.

When you go more than 4 - 5 hours your physical brain (sub consious) says "dude were starving must be a famine start storing fat".

Below are some search engine results I have from the more trusted sites on the web. Sites like WebMD & MSNBC. If you are interested in a more through explaination of these theories Dr Robert Young is doing some cutting edge work on this. He was nominated by the United Nations as the person that has contributed most to nutrition and health.

I've included the links here with the supporting text cut and pasted.

Can you really change your metabolism? - Chew On This - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14802091/)

Don't skip meals

Space meals 3-4 hours apart. That way you have enough energy throughout the day and you'll be free of the headaches, hunger pangs or mood swings you get when you're famished.

Eating erratically signals the body to burn slower and conserve fat. This is why the law student who has been skipping meals is not losing weight on 1,200 calories. She would be better off having smaller, balanced meals and snacks throughout the day.


Make the Most of Your Metabolism (http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/guide/make-most-your-metabolism?page=2)

"When you put too many hours between meals, your metabolism actually slows down to compensate," says Kimball.
But what really works is "Eat more often, and you'll lose more weight." Small, but frequent, meals help keep your metabolism in high gear, and that means you'll burn more calories overall
"When you put too many hours between meals, your metabolism actually slows down to compensate," says Kimball.


How to Speed Up Metabolism (http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/calories/burning_calories/boost_metabolism.htm)

8 Ways to Speed Up Your Metabolism

Eat little and often - there's evidence that eating small, regular meals throughout the day, rather than one or two large meals, may help to keep your metabolism ticking over. Surprisingly, around 10 percent of the calories we use each day go on digesting and absorbing food - so the more times you eat, the greater this effect is likely to be.

Increase metabolism, Speed up metabolism,metabolism boosters,Basal Metabolic Rate (http://www.fatfreekitchen.com/weightloss/metabolism.html)
Metabolism Boosters

To boost metabolism, do not skip any meals. Eat 5-6 small meals during the day. Starving will slow down your metabolism


Check out the work of Dr. Robert Young who has been doing tremendous work on microbiology. Amazing stuff. His book "The phMiracle for Weight Loss" goes into detail on the microbiology of metabolism.

Oh yeah on the subconcious brain. Below is a link that directs you to a description on Triun brain theory. This describes how the subconcious (2 brains) are running amuck without supervision. The physical (lizard) brain is the one I believe you were questioning.


The Three Brains (http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Three-Brain-Theory&id=719704)

However what most people don't know is that the other 2 brains are actually more powerful and a lot of the time make our decisions for us rather than the logical brain,

The amount of a given fuel used by the body is directly related to the quantity of that substrate at the time.

The body prefers to use glucose.

Carbs breakdown into glucose.

I'm not sure where you're getting the Green Clean vs. Dirty Fossil analogy?



I'm getting the Green Clean vs. Dirty Fossil analogy from Stu Mittleman. At one of his "The New Nutrition" seminars, I believe it was Nov 2007. Dr Depak Chopra and Dr Robert Young, both considered revolutionary, discovering breakthrough technologies in their areas of health, fitness and nutrition.

Stu Mittleman, as you might remember a few years ago ran from New York to California in 35 days averaging something like 75 - 80 miles per day. His original expectations were to run it in 60 days. This was considered impossible, that was like running 2 full marathons a day.

In actuallity what happened was that Stu became stronger and faster each day. He averaged over 75 miles a day (3 marathons) and on the last day he ran for over 120 miles. At the end of this final leg his heart rate was under 90 bpm, within 5 mins his resting heart rate was mid 50 bpm. Within 30 minutes he was considered fully rested.

Stu fully contributes this success from training his body to burn fat, not glucose for fuel. At the seminar Dr. Robert Young showed Stu's blood under a dark field microscope and compared samples of the audience and himself. There was much less cell waste in the blood of Stu than even Dr Young and much less than the blood of audience members.

Dr Depak Chopra and Dr Young using dark field and light field microscopes have calculated the amount waste from fat energy production to be 15% of the glucose based waste. Dr Young said that he thought it was much lower but can not give a definite number. Most of the waste product from glucose stays in the cell then eliminated by the lympatic system. All of the waste produced from burning fat is eliminated through the blood.

I am not recommending this book as I have not read it but Stu Mittletons book "Slow Burn" is supposed to be revolutionizing the Professional training arena. My marathon running friends can not believe how good they feel after a marathon from the information in this book. I have included a link below to a review of the book. I have no personal gain from the sale of Stu's book.

Stu Mittleman Slow Burn marathon book (http://www.iseecoaching.com/NewYorkMarathon2004-3.htm)

Stu Mittleman explains that in order to feel fit and healthy all day through we should change our metabolism from a sugar-burning metabolism to a fat-burning metabolism.

You're running into the problem of overgeneralizing a very complex and individual topic.


That could be quite true. I tend to like simple, easy to understand technologies. I want results.

From my history with my career in an unrelated field, when you start to have many avenues, and no one can say specifically what is the best path, there has not been enough research done. So far it has held true in this area also.

I think people are frustrated with the health and fitness aspects of their lives. They are told drink coffee, don't drink coffee, drink coffee. As an example I have been inhaling steam every morning over a pot of hot water on the stove before I do my cardio. Wow, the difference is incredable. Not 10% but like a factor of 100. Why didn't someone say something?


I know people who do well with fasting strategies. I know people who do well with nibbling. I know others who do well with a structured, rigid meal plan.

I've tried it all on myself, and have had the great privilege of 'experimenting' with a lot of people.

The bottom line is there is no One Strategy that is universally harmful. It all comes down to the individual response to a given strategy.


I'm not going to agree with you on that last statement. At least not yet. I believe that, as in the Stu Mittleman example, that to continure down the same path that others took without considering alternatives we are hurting ourselves more than we can possibly imagine.

1. How do you plan going about the installation of said habits?
It is through directed routine/habit building. Basically we have routines/habits that developed themselves or with very minimal input from us. Like we grocery shop on Saturday mornings and pay bills on Friday night.

Tony Schwartz has done some ground breaking work on this. Any of his books are just mind bending. His approach is you take a routine that you want, definite it, deliberately and purposely repeat and develop it until it is installed.

I have done this twice.

My routine/ritual was my eating habits. Took about 60 days to develop and install. I am constantly amazed at this simple step. I have been looking for a new car. I stopped at a coffee house today without thinking, was totally into these new car brochures already figured out my order when wham, I stopped cold, told myself I have good food at home and left. This would never have happened before, trust me. I travel alot and eat out. This scenaro has always killed my diets. I usually don't notice until the end of the day. Something that I am not concious of is controlling this behavior, it is obvious to me.

I am now installing a daily success ritual. About 4 weeks in I am noticing huge positive changes. I still need to refine it and I probably will tweak it for years.

Some background on Tony Schwartz is that he has trained many Olympic gold medalist, Greg Louganis, Mark Spitz, Eric Heidel and I think 15 others. Alot of professional sport athletes. He is the first person I have heard of that mentioned human cycles and just more than I can mention.


2. How do you account for individual variation in hunger patterns and response to feeding?


I use a feeding schedule of every couple of hours using one of the human cycles that Tony speaks of.


3. A response in scale weight doesn't always = a diet is 'working.'


The scale like a business dashboard. A business owner monitors his busines by a few factors, a dashboard. Sales, returns on sales, conversion rates, expenses and expenses as a ratio of sales. Probably some payroll stuff like hours worked to date. This lets him know quickly the health of his business. Not perfectly but well enough that he can off load it to an employee.

The scale is my diet dashboard. It gives me a pulse on my diet so I can monitor my subconscious (employee) with my diet. I have off loaded my diet and I can now concentrate on something else.

Like the business dashboard, if sales drop radically, you know you need to get in there and figure out what is going on. If the scale goes up more than I expect it to, like 5 pounds, I need to find out what is going on.

I'm a firm believer in the power of the mind. But the subconscious doesn't control all the biological mechanisms associated with human metabolism.

I don't think we have a clue on what it controls. I will give you two examples.

1) I did a firewalk experience. Real coals that an infrared temp gun showed at 1,600 degrees F. I had to turn my head away to breathe it was so hot. I walked 40 feet through this without burning my feet, no blisters a little soot but no burns. What was that about? Dude that is impossible. We had 50 minutes of hypnosis, but still I should have been walking on stubs by the time I got to the other end. Something big is going on subconsiously.

2) My best friends wife had a hystorectomy and is unable to take pain medication because all of it makes her nauseas. Not a good situation with this type procedure. I have another friend that is a certified clinical hypnotist. My friend's wife was on a morphine pump and just couldn't stand the pain. The Hypnotist came in and hypnotised her, over a 30 minute period. He told her she would feel the pain and welcome it but notice any and all changes in the pain. The pain would exist but feel more like a gentle breeze on her arm. She came out of it and walked to the bathroom, quit sweating and told me that she liked the pain she was feeling, she found it comforting, like a cool breeze. Man, that is almost scary.

Subconsciously, it is something we haven't even begun to figure out.

I think there is alot of leverage in this area. I intend to find out.

Sorry Richie, it looks like you spent a lot of time typing all that. I don't have the time nor patience to read it or discuss this matter further with you. It's not a matter of a lack of respect for your opinion or a lack of care with regards to furthering my 'horizon.' I simply don't have an interest in heading in the direction our discussion was heading.

If people were interested in what you had to say I'm sure they'll appreciate the information you provided.

Best to you.

Sorry Richie, it looks like you spent a lot of time typing all that. I don't have the time nor patience to read it or discuss this matter further with you. It's not a matter of a lack of respect for your opinion or a lack of care with regards to furthering my 'horizon.' I simply don't have an interest in heading in the direction our discussion was heading.

If people were interested in what you had to say I'm sure they'll appreciate the information you provided.

Best to you.

Thank you for all your great information again Steve, your dedication is wonderful.

Uhg, this thread was a train wreck, lol.

Uhg, this thread was a train wreck, lol.

Well, a fiery thread at the end of the day means someone was thinking somewhere.

I suppose, thanks. :)

My understanding of the theory behind the 5-6 meals a day is it keeps up your metabolism.

Humans are grazing animals according to our teeth, stomach and long small intestine. We are built to go field to field eating or grazing.




I agree and learned from your whole post, this community is indeed helpful.:iagree:

I agree and learned from your whole post, this community is indeed helpful.:iagree:

You would agree.

You're a spammer.

You would agree.

You're a spammer.

Was there as much humor in this post as I feel there was?:piggy:

What an interesting thread!! I'm new here and would just like to say that with all the theories out there on weight loss I feel like I have found a solution that works for me, and everyone who has tried it. Nutritional cleansing is the way to go. We are filled with toxins from air, water, and food that our systems totally clog up and don't function the way they should. When you put in organic minerals, vitamins and nutrients, as nature intended, the body becomes the miracle it was meant to be. Impurities are released which allows excess fat to be released. It has truly been a blessing in my life!!

Cheers all!

You're a stupid spammer too so I wouldn't expect a lot of people to listen.

Sure, you don't post links, so far as I know.

You simply solicit the shit out of people to PM you so you can tell them about your Super Secrets Deluxe 1000 Package.

Stop it.

You have info to share... share it. On the forum. This isn't difficult.

You simply solicit the shit out of people
heh - boy was that a fun choice of words...

His product is Internal cleansing :)

I follow the no eating after 7pm more to help my sleep than anything. I always wake up feeling like i had a much better nights sleep after I don't eat after dinner.

Would anyone join me in saying add taking unnatural diet pills to that list?