Weight Loss Thread

Snacking is not bad. Eating when you're hungry is actually a good practice in weight loss so you don't get that whole "Eyes bigger than your stomach" phenomenon at meal time. Just don't snack on garbage.

If you snack on healthy shit (nuts, fruit, lean meat deli slices) it keeps your metabolism going all day. It's akin to keeping your motor running rather than turning it off and on.

Even if you snack on healthy stuff you need to be wary of portion sizes. I can easily eat my daily calorie limit in nuts and fruits between meals.

If you snack on healthy shit (nuts, fruit, lean meat deli slices) it keeps your metabolism going all day. It's akin to keeping your motor running rather than turning it off and on.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this has been proven to be false. I'm sure Deathwing or The Master will swoop in with their science, bitch! and present studies.

Give up grazing: Eating just TWO meals is better for weight loss than eating the same amount of calories in six | Mail Online

Most recent study, but it concerns people with type 2 diabetes so may not be generally applicable. But there are actually a LARGE number of studies on meal frequency, snacking, etc., and they all have so many variables (because the researchers were studying a specific thing, just like in this study) that it is hard to say. Fasting in some cases is bad. Intermittent fasting when you're in nutritional ketosis has proved great for weight loss, at certain body fat percentages (18% and over, with dramatic help at 25% and over). There is the study in Spain which says the most important factor is simply not eating after 8 PM. They did a study on thousands of people. Some of which lived in areas where siestas were common, so they'd go to bed around like 3-4 AM because of their afternoon nap, and some who lived in areas where it wasn't so they went to bed around 10-12. In BOTH cases simply not eating after 8 PM, regardless of how or when you eat during the day, when you went to sleep, etc., gave the best results for weight loss. Presumably it is tied into our circadian rhythm and how that effects hormone levels, but they don't know that, it is just a plausible explanation.

This is one of those areas where there is great data if you have specific health issues (diabetes, endocrinal disorders of any kinds, thyroid issues) but not a ton of data for people who are basically healthy.

I don't know that a study reported on by the Daily Mail should be something you put any creedence into. Plus, the study was only done on 54 people. That's a pretty abysmal sample size.

Everything I've read has pointed to meal timing being a complete waste of time. At best you're talking about a miniscule difference.

Elurin_sl said:

I don't know that a study reported on by the Daily Mail should be something you put any creedence into. Plus, the study was only done on 54 people. That's a pretty abysmal sample size.

Everything I've read has pointed to meal timing being a complete waste of time. At best you're talking about a miniscule difference.

Click to expand...

I find people do more reading if I link an article, rather than the study. I've read the study as well. Given the specificity of what they were looking at and the statistical significance of their findings, their sample size was more than adequate. But, again, it only can be really said to apply to people with type 2 diabetes.

A lot of people approach meal timing purely from a psychological perspective. They just need to eat something. People eating at a caloric deficit, sometimes for the first time in their lives, can't deal with the hunger pangs. You're going to be hungry if you eat at a caloric deficit (barring ketogenic diets, where satiety is one of the benefits that most people love). There haven't been any substantial studies on that either, but plenty of anecdotal evidence. And "being hungry" is one of the top reasons for people failing to stick to a diet in a number of surveys. There isn't a conclusive answer, but there is a lot of data, and some of it would well be relevant to people in this thread and make a big difference for them.

McCheese_sl said:

Even if you snack on healthy stuff you need to be wary of portion sizes. I can easily eat my daily calorie limit in nuts and fruits between meals.



I'm pretty sure this has been proven to be false. I'm sure Deathwing or The Master will swoop in with their science, bitch! and present studies.

Click to expand...

Yeah I just checked the research and in the last ~2 years they've gone from "No wait it's bad!" to "Wait we don't know!" So yeah, fuck it. I do remember research indicating that WHEN you eat your meals in regard to before bed doesn't fucking matter.

Personally I eat like twice a day and don't eat inbetween which leads to my body basically holding onto anything in my stomach then when food goes in, the rest leaves. Food in and out in the same 30 minute window almost every time.

Sugar.

When will you fools wise up?

It's all about sugar.

First you stop the sugar, that lowers your insulin, and you lose weight.

Hey, eating fewer meals per day leads to stable blood sugar and therefore stable insulin, and you lose weight easier?

No shit.



Seeing that guy with a bun in his hand is like looking at a lung cancer victim smoking cigarettes. People are being fucked over by the lies they were taught about nutrition.

That picture is undeniable proof of whatever the fuck it is you're trying to say

I'm saying that fat fuck did not choose to be a fat fuck, he was lied to.

Just like me.

With correct information I'm curing myself of this condition. I'm bitter. Going to continue to speak the truth here so other fat fucks can do what I did and cure themselves.

Sugar is poison.

You lose weight being in a caloric deficit, there is no other way. Cutting down on sugar is healthy for most people but does jack shit for losing weight if you eat 3000 calories of everything else.

Meal timing and frequency is hotly debated, the best way to approach it is to use the method that's easiest to stick to. Eat 20 times or two, the deficit will do its job.

Warmuth_sl said:

You lose weight being in a caloric deficit, there is no other way. Cutting down on sugar is healthy for most people but does jack shit for losing weight if you eat 3000 calories of everything else.

Meal timing and frequency is hotly debated, the best way to approach it is to use the method that's easiest to stick to. Eat 20 times or two, the deficit will do its job.

Click to expand...

This is the bullshit we were taught by the government. It doesn't work because you're applying accounting to a biological system. It's all about hormones.

Eat as much protein as you want, you won't look like this:



without roids and good genes.

It's not how many calories you eat, it's what your body does with those calories. Not all calories are the same.

And every week I'm dropping pounds of body fat by avoiding sugar. Go back and read what I've posted about this before, it's solid science.

Deathwing_sl said:

How many times are you going to make yourself look like an idiot with this "sugar is poison" bullshit before you shutup?

Click to expand...

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/13...comms3245.html

Science, bitch. Back your shit up.

Himeo_sl said:

This is the bullshit we were taught by the government. It doesn't work because you're applying accounting to a biological system. It's all about hormones.

Eat as much protein as you want, you won't look like this:

without roids and good genes.

It's not how many calories you eat, it's what your body does with those calories. Not all calories are the same.

Click to expand...

Is this about muscle growth or fat loss? Either way you're losing weight because you consume less calories than you burn. There is no other reason.

Warmuth_sl said:

Is this about muscle growth or fat loss? Either way you're losing weight because you consume less calories than you burn. There is no other reason.

Click to expand...

So you agree hormones (ie steroids) control the growth of muscle cells, but deny growth in fat cells is controlled similarly?

Remarkable.

High HGH levels:



High Insulin levels:

Himeo_sl said:

So you agree hormones (ie steroids) control the growth of muscle cells, but deny growth in fat cells is controlled similarly?

Remarkable.

Click to expand...

I think I'm falling prey here.....