Once again, many of you are missing the point. Eating 6-7 small meals per day? Why? Will eating 7 meals per day at 2,500 calories and 200g protein magically make you lose more fat than 3 meals per day at 2,500 calories and 200g protein? No. Why should it, the calories are the same therefore, assuming an energy deficit exists ad protein is sufficient, muscle will be spared, and fat will be burned to make up for a lack of energy intake.
THERE IS NO MAGIC INVOLVED IN EATING 6-8 MEALS PER DAY! You will not lose fat eating 6 times per day if you are OVER eating by 500 calories (even if it’s 500 calories of “clean” foods, which I have yet to hear a reasonable definition of, but that’s beside the point…)
Face it, it still boils down to this simple fact: the body has no need to use up energy stores, if it’s energy needs are met. Period.
It does not matter if you eat 3 meals per day or 10, low fat or high fat, or whatever. All diets work. If you do not believe me, read this: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/blog/2008/06/30/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories/
No matter how complex or how simple your diet may be, if you are eating more than you expend, you will gain weight. ADDITIONALLY if you eat less than you expend, AND ensure enough protein to spare lean tissue, you will lose fat. It really is as simple as that.
Finally the point of refeeds, or cycling calories, is this: to keep expenditure high enough by keeping the metabolism revved up that one can to eat enough protein while still remaining in a (weekly) deficit. Diets like the UD2 wont work if you are in a net (read: weekly) caloric SURPLUS.
P.S. while over consuming protein will lead to less fat gain than carbohydrates, this is only because of the Thermic Effect of Food, therefore it increases ones caloric expenditure in a roundabout way, but calories in vs calories out STILL holds true.
Can this thread please be closed now?[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is in disagreement w/ the fact that one loses or gains total body mass (weight) relative to caloric intake being below or exceeding one’s physiological “set point.” I think the question is how best to lose body fat while gaining, or at least maintaining muscle mass. That, I believe you addressed quite well.
Some of your other points, however, I’d ask you to reconsider based upon the scientific evidence.
Your referencing that there is no evidence that eating 6-7 small meals is any better than consuming 3 has any effect on body composition, assuming caloric intake is held constant, is something I addressed in my previous post/reply. Indeed there is very strong evidence that, holding caloric intake constant, that meal frequency has a significant effect on body composition and blood lipids. The reason may simply be the result of maintaining stable blood glucose levels and thus reducing large perturbations in insulin response, however, that’s another series of studies altogether.
The macronutrient ratio studies have left just as many questions standing as may be answered; the thermic effect of protein has, for example, specifically been addressed in various studies as NOT being able to account for the entire amount of significant change that has been observed. It’s likely a contributor, and I don’t think any rational researcher would deny that, however, most respected researchers at the forefront of that research also haven’t concluded the thermic effect of protein as the only mechanism involved. More than likely, it’s a combination of TEF, energy expenditure, satiety, and direct and/or indirect hormonal signaling mechanisms. However, no one of the aforementioned can or has been suggested as explaining it all.
Thus, my point isn’t to argue w/ you, b/c clearly you seem pretty annoyed that this topic continues being discussed; rather, I am simply suggesting that you consider the data before you render your final opinion. - c