I don't speak metric, but is that equivalent to taking a dump? I mean is that progress? Genuine question, for all I know that's like 10 pounds.76.7kg and 14.8% -> 76kg and 14.1%. Still not back down to where I was before Glastonbury but decent results all the same!
no you moron, it's equivalent to me getting my haircut, you absolute cretin. Is it really that hard to use google to convert something?I don't speak metric, but is that equivalent to taking a dump? I mean is that progress? Genuine question, for all I know that's like 10 pounds.
citation needed please, the logic I was taught is that when you get full your body goes into fat storing mode, smaller meals (or should I say the avoidance of large meals) is a way to manage your bodies fat storage mode from turning on.research shows that it isn't really the case. 4-5, or even 3 are probably fine.
my dark and mysterious powers of precognition_sl said:Gary Schwartz, a researcher with the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, answered, "There's no strong data supporting either [three meals a day or six meals a day] as being more effective" for losing weight or maintaining lost weight. "Clearly there is an emphasis on reducing caloric intake overall, whether it be by decreasing meal size and/or decreasing meal frequency."
In a recent American Journal of Clinical Nutrition editorial, a team of nutrition researchers concluded that whether you are practicing the "three" or "six" meal daily dietary pattern, weight loss ultimately comes down to "how much energy (or calories) is consumed as opposed to how often or how regularly one eats."
The rustling is growingno you moron, it's equivalent to me getting my haircut, you absolute cretin. Is it really that hard to use google to convert something?
Don't interfere with Ossoi's 20 month journey to drop a whopping 3.914219% bodyfat, he's concentrating.The rustling is growing
The logic is flawed, because instead of using logic and science, you're saying things like magical "fat storage mode" like we're some kind of robot that can just switch on and off. Anyways, I'm back onto an IF routine.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_fasting(for your citations) I'm going on a cruise in 2 weeks and I'd like to continue dropping weight until then so that I can look great out at the beach. Anyways, I don't really care "why" my weight and inches off my waist drop while I'm on the diet, only that it works (and I can maintain it for a while without suffering), and it has before, so I'll use it again.citation needed please, the logic I was taught is that when you get full your body goes into fat storing mode, smaller meals (or should I say the avoidance of large meals) is a way to manage your bodies fat storage mode from turning on.
When your body consumes more energy than it uses, it will store excess energy as fat. If it consumes less energy than it uses, it will make up the difference by (largely) taking it from that fat. There is no "fat storage mode" triggered by meeting some sort of calorie threshold in a single meal vs consuming the same amount spread out during the day. It's all about the net energy balance in vs out.citation needed please, the logic I was taught is that when you get full your body goes into fat storing mode, smaller meals (or should I say the avoidance of large meals) is a way to manage your bodies fat storage mode from turning on.
No it doesn't. 3 meals a day is the default setting for most people, it's how they're raised and how they go through life. Switching from 3 to 6 requires someone to think "ok, how am I going to make this work" and "ok, how often do I need to eat to fit in 6 meals" as opposed to the typical routine of breakfast - lunch - dinner with random snacks/treats inbetween to satisfy hungerEating 3 meals per day requires the same planning, that makes zero sense.