Incorrect.  The study didn't show that.  It said things seemed to do... and did not give specific caloric or starting body fat information.  So it really showed nothing.  You actually proved my point and that's the funny thing.  It's of NO value if you can't see each person and their starting stats.  You don't know the base.  It's too general.  In general, we lose weight when we cut down.  I've said that over and over, but you keep claiming otherwise.

You know what I've noticed about calorie counting without knowledge?  It leads to rapid weight gain right after causing harm.  Right portions, right timing, right choices.

STOP saying I'm railing against something I'm not when I've now made it clear many times that's not the case.  I was clear calories matter overall.  That's your paper tiger.  You are trying to prove your point by saying I'm against an overall point that I've already said I agree to be basically true.

The basis of weight loss is many things.  That's what you're not getting.  Go to Weight Watcher if you just think it's about calories.  

I know the hussman site well.  I also know the BMR tool on the site is highly questionable, which is why I had performance testing done.

It's not just the word "filler", it's how you described it and as lesser important, which it's not.  You're now acting like it's the word I was questioning, when it was the overall approach.

ok, how bout tom venuto. high carbs days, 380 grams. Low carb days 250 grams. And seeing how Venuto has reduced his bodyfat to 3.7%, I would say carbs do not cause obesity.

and here is a good article on paleo diets from tom venuto

www.burnthefat.com/paleo_diet.html

Jessica - Mighty Max

Incorrect.  The study didn't show that.  It said things seemed to do... and did not give specific caloric or starting body fat information.  So it really showed nothing.  You actually proved my point and that's the funny thing.  It's of NO value if you can't see each person and their starting stats.  You don't know the base.  It's too general.  In general, we lose weight when we cut down.  I've said that over and over, but you keep claiming otherwise.

You know what I've noticed about calorie counting without knowledge?  It leads to rapid weight gain right after causing harm.  Right portions, right timing, right choices.

STOP saying I'm railing against something I'm not when I've now made it clear many times that's not the case.  I was clear calories matter overall.  That's your paper tiger.  You are trying to prove your point by saying I'm against an overall point that I've already said I agree to be basically true.

The basis of weight loss is many things.  That's what you're not getting.  Go to Weight Watcher if you just think it's about calories.  

I know the hussman site well.  I also know the BMR tool on the site is highly questionable, which is why I had performance testing done.

It's not just the word "filler", it's how you described it and as lesser important, which it's not.  You're now acting like it's the word I was questioning, when it was the overall approach.

You obvious;y skimmed the summary and did not read o=it: Directly from the article:

Our goal was to recruit 800 overweight and obese subjects (400 at each site), of whom about 40% would be men. Participants had to be 30 to 70 years of age and have a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 25 to 40. Major criteria for exclusion were the presence of diabetes or unstable cardiovascular disease, the use of medications that affect body weight, and insufficient motivation as assessed by interview and questionnaire.

These were overweight and obese people. The created a calroic deficit with different ratios of macros for each group and lost weight.  News flash, people lose weight on weight watchers. Is it the healthiest way or best to provide body recomposition, no but people do, in fact, lose weight. 

You know what I've noticed about calorie counting without knowledge?  It leads to rapid weight gain right after causing harm.  Right portions, right timing, right choices.

Sorry I call BS. If someone creates the appropriate caloric deficit it is nigh impossible to gain weight. I'm sure your observations hold weight in your mind, myself I'll take science. Just to blow your theorys out the window a bit more before I head off:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7499636

here have been reports of an inverse relationship between meal frequency (MF) and adiposity. It has been postulated that this may be explained by favourable effects of increased MF on appetite control and possibly on gut peptides as well. The main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of − 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34·6 (sd 9·5); BMI 37·1 (sd 4·5) kg/m²) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4·7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0·01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( − 3·1 (sd 2·9) kg; P < 0·01), lean body mass ( − 2·0 (sd 3·1) kg; P < 0·05) and BMI ( − 1·7 (sd 0·8) kg/m²; P < 0·01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study.

OMG blasphamy! It doesn't matter if you eat 3x or 6x a day as long as you eat the appropriate kcals! Egads!

That's the last I'll say, I keep forgetting discussing diet with people on the internet is like religion. Science be damned.

That didn't provide anymore information.  BMI means absolutely nothing.  Overweight and obese are general and nebulous terms.  Without the specifics, it's really not of value.  

You call BS on the facts?  Ummm, okay, go ahead.  I have science on my side and what you are saying is simply not true, supported by the facts or even logical.  Also, read what I said.  You keep taking out of context, which is essentially a LIE.  

Read again.  AFTER is your key word.  You have once again created a paper tiger.

It's cute how you say "science be damned", given you have failed to grasp the science here.  You didn't blow my theories out the window at all.  Nothing you've said has done so.  Nice try though.

You should read up on insulin.  That blows you theory out the window on number of meals.  It also goes to my original stance that this is a dangerous stance to take, one that can seriously harm someone who doesn't understand the calorie counting concept.

You are wrong about eating numerous meals.  Since you disagree, why are you here?  You don't believe in BFL.

Charlie - Here is an excert from the article you posted that supports my view and an invidual

"They claim that agriculture arrived on the scene only 10,000 or so years ago, so any foods produced as a result of the modern agricultural system should also be on the "banned" list because our bodies aren't genetically engineered to consume them.

The truth is, there are some starchy carbohydrates and grains which are very minimally processed or completely unprocessed.

Furthermore, some people can metabolically handle starches and grains just fine, while others cannot (many obese sedentary individuals are likey to have metabolic syndrome and not handle concentrated carbs very well, even natural ones). "

I am not an IFBB athlete and I have never been able to get under 15% body fat. I am not genetically predispositioned to be super lean and some people are. I have been following BFL lifestyle for a year and a half and I have yet to reach my initial body composition goals. I am trying something new and take offense to being called "brainwashed." Before I started doing BFL I had lost weight from 245-255 pounds to 185 pounds and I wanted to focus on fat loss and not just weight loss. I can lean down to about 16% body fat but bounce right back to 19-20% very quickly. I am giving myself a month to try out a Paleo inspiried nutritional plan and I was wanting some positive feedback or advice and a polite discussion.

My two cents...

I have to agree with Bill.  My trainer confirms this.  Calories are what matter, but like he said.  Like my trainer say, as well as my doctor, the spiking insulin theory works mainly with diabetic people or people with insulin resistance.

Here's what happened when I was 23.  Before, when I was 23 I went on a low cal diet where I ate 60carbs/20fat/20protein.  Guess what, I lost weight, and did not weight train.  I lost about 3 pounds per week.  Now, my percentage body fat went down from 40% to 21%, with out a lot of protein.  I ate about 1400 calories per day, and did aerobics 5 days per week.  However, I didn't build the proper amount of muscle to keep up my weight loss without doing a lot of exercise. At the time I needed 2600 cals to maintain my weight, but I created a deficit of 1900 calories per day.  However I did not lose muscle either.  I was very skinny looking, but I needed muscle to fill me out, and give me a better shape.  Which is why I hired a CPT 7 years ago, and he does indeed measure my body fat, so I can prove it was fat loss.

BFL, is healthier, because like my trainer says the REASON people must eat protein is the maintain and/or build muscle.  As you get older you lose muscle, and that's why you gain weight.  Heavy HIIT cardio and weights will require protein to maintain muscle, so it's needed in any sensible plan.  Also fat is needed as an energy source, so we must also eat fat.  Good carbs are need for energy source and for nutrients.  Get this, about 8 years ago I went on a diet again to lose 20lbs ( had gotten lazy with my regime).  I ate low fat cookies and cakes but my weight loss is slower at the present because instead of 1400 calories, it's 1800 calories.  Keep in mind I'm also trying to build lean muscle, which I am fortunate that it is easy for me. When you eat a lot of  simple carbs it's also causes water retention, so when you are "gaining" weight, some of it could be water.  Many Atkins people mistook this for weight loss.

My trainer is a CPT and body builder, but he's not the only Bodybuilder who's told me this. My medical doctor also told me this.  

By the way, my blood sugar stays low because I take cinnamon, and eat lots of  fiber, but I don't lose fat any faster then when I was eating more carbs (half which were simple).  What matters is, when I eat enough protein, I will eventually build muscle which will help me lose weight faster, but more importantly maintain my  muscle mass and weight.  I don't like high carb/low cal diets because I am hungrier and I don't build the proper muscle and I have to exercise continually for maintenance.  However, my fat loss was the same or even faster because I was only eating 1400 cals opposed to 1800 cals.

Again my two cents!

Jessica - Mighty Max

That didn't provide anymore information.  BMI means absolutely nothing.  Overweight and obese are general and nebulous terms.  Without the specifics, it's really not of value.  

You call BS on the facts?  Ummm, okay, go ahead.  I have science on my side and what you are saying is simply not true, supported by the facts or even logical.  Also, read what I said.  You keep taking out of context, which is essentially a LIE.  

Read again.  AFTER is your key word.  You have once again created a paper tiger.

It's cute how you say "science be damned", given you have failed to grasp the science here.  You didn't blow my theories out the window at all.  Nothing you've said has done so.  Nice try though.

You should read up on insulin.  That blows you theory out the window on number of meals.  It also goes to my original stance that this is a dangerous stance to take, one that can seriously harm someone who doesn't understand the calorie counting concept.

You are wrong about eating numerous meals.  Since you disagree, why are you here?  You don't believe in BFL.

God your a hoot. I give you to peer reviewed studies in national journals of medicine that show exactly the points, you just don't want to see. Then you accuse me of not understanding the science yet you have shown nothing, but your own "observations" to back your "science".  

While I agree BMI can be misleading, the people studied had a BMI of 37. For a 5'6 woman that is 235lbs of body weight. So either these doctors found the biggest steroid freak women in England (Iris Kyle 5x Ms. Olympia has a BMI of 27. 5'7" 170lbs of pure muscle and she is a huge steroid infused bodybuilder) just to fudge the results to help me prove a point (checks in the mail guys thanks) or they used very overweight and obese people.  

You are wrong about eating numerous meals.  Since you disagree, why are you here?  You don't believe in BFL.

LOL talk about paper tigers! Where did I ever say I didn't believe in BFL or that it didn't work? It worked great for me and thousands of other.. I still recommend it as a starting point to family and friends looking to get in shape. It's simple (not easy) to understand and follow.  It provides the most important thing IMO, a frame work to follow. both in nutrition and in the gym. What I have found since finishing my BFL cycles and looking to expand my horizons is it is not the only way, and maybe not even the best way, to skin a cat.. The pyramid routine for lifting is definitely  not the optimal way of building strength.

If you could take off your zealot's glasses, you'll note I never said 6 meals a day didn't work or was less effective than say 3 meals a day. Just, scientific studies have shown no significant difference between the two.It's what ever works for a person better. Some people do better with bigger meals and noting in between. Some do better with small meals. Both ways have been shown to be equally effective at weight loss.  As long as they are getting the appropriate level of protein in their diets to prevent muscle loss during a caloric deficit or build muscle in a surplus and their calories are in line with their goals, either way works.

Here is a good article (and a great website) on this topic. Read it all the way through before rising up in a righteous fury, especially the practical application section. He is not saying 6 meals does not work.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html

BryanL

Charlie - Here is an excert from the article you posted that supports my view and an invidual

"They claim that agriculture arrived on the scene only 10,000 or so years ago, so any foods produced as a result of the modern agricultural system should also be on the "banned" list because our bodies aren't genetically engineered to consume them.

The truth is, there are some starchy carbohydrates and grains which are very minimally processed or completely unprocessed.

Furthermore, some people can metabolically handle starches and grains just fine, while others cannot (many obese sedentary individuals are likey to have metabolic syndrome and not handle concentrated carbs very well, even natural ones). "

I am not an IFBB athlete and I have never been able to get under 15% body fat. I am not genetically predispositioned to be super lean and some people are. I have been following BFL lifestyle for a year and a half and I have yet to reach my initial body composition goals. I am trying something new and take offense to being called "brainwashed." Before I started doing BFL I had lost weight from 245-255 pounds to 185 pounds and I wanted to focus on fat loss and not just weight loss. I can lean down to about 16% body fat but bounce right back to 19-20% very quickly. I am giving myself a month to try out a Paleo inspiried nutritional plan and I was wanting some positive feedback or advice and a polite discussion.

Brian, I think it's great to try something new if what you have been doing isn't working any more or getting you the results you are after. As I said Paleo is not for me as I feel horrible on low carbs and find it is counter productive to my current goals of training for power lifting.  I'll be looking forward to reading about it on your blog. Sometimes just changing things up adds the motivation to stick to it and get results. 

Interestingly enough, the company I work for held a wellness fair yesterday as part of the "grand opening" of the new fitness facility they put in.  They did blood pressure, checked your cholesteral and they did body fat testing using the Tanita SC-331S Body Composition Analyzer.  I have a co-worker upstairs, he's 6' tall, weighs 200# and has a clearly visible six pack.   His physique rating??  OBESE.  I've been working out diligently since 2001, sometimes much more focused than others.  As of yesterday by the same machine they used on my friend, I too was classified as OBESE.  Heaven help what that machine would have said when I weighed 328# at my top weight.

Funny thing about this little story is that some where, the science behind "fitness & fatness" have gotten screwed up.  I don't know how to fix it myself other than to manage myself, my nutrition and my fitness to suit ME, regardless of what body composition machines are analyzing or what data they are using to support their claims of my obesity.  

I know that I am more fit than I've ever been in my whole life.  I run faster, jump higher, lift more and LAUGH a hell of a lot more than I used to and THAT's what matters.

Eat clean, natural foods, as unproccessed as possible and move your butt, hard, fast and heavy and you will get where you want to be.  

ONE SHOE does not fit all feet.  Use yourself to experiment until you find out what works for YOU.  

Be consistent, eat clean and don't try making poor choices "fit" into an otherwise healthy plan unless it's an off day, make no excuses and do the work.  Simple.

No.  That is incorrect.  You give me peer reviewed studies that are general and not showing what you claimed they would.  You are swearing by them and they might prove something, but not what you're claiming they do.  Just because you used a key word that was in play to find the study doesn't mean the study showed what you were looking to prove.  Did you read the studies?  I have and they don't show what you've claimed at all.

I have already said that a calorie deficit will lead to weight loss, but you keep using your study as "proof" and claiming I don't understand the science that I really do understand.

Then you patronize me as a way of leveling, which is weak.  

Now you falsely accuse me of paper tigers, which is dishonest.  You made a huge "point" that number of meals do not matter.  That is in direct conflict with BFL.

I'm not a zealot, but that's another way for you to deflect.  

If you had 2000 calories in one meal then your body couldn't process all at once and thereby not make the muscle gains, thereby changing your metabolic structure and musculature.  It would also cause insulin issues.  Those are significant issues.  So no, either way doesn't work.  I'm not saying you must have 6, but your argument that it simply doesn't matter is wrong.  

I'm not the righteous one here.  I haven't falsely accused you.  You have me.  I have shown where I understand some of your points, but you then inappropriately accuse me of not and saying I've said things I haven't.  

Cal Ripken classified as obese when he was playing for the Orioles.  I would say Champster is in good company.  I would say Cal Ripken is in good company.  

Jessica - Mighty Max

No.  That is incorrect.  You give me peer reviewed studies that are general and not showing what you claimed they would.  You are swearing by them and they might prove something, but not what you're claiming they do.  Just because you used a key word that was in play to find the study doesn't mean the study showed what you were looking to prove.  Did you read the studies?  I have and they don't show what you've claimed at all.

I have already said that a calorie deficit will lead to weight loss, but you keep using your study as "proof" and claiming I don't understand the science that I really do understand.

Then you patronize me as a way of leveling, which is weak.  

Now you falsely accuse me of paper tigers, which is dishonest.  You made a huge "point" that number of meals do not matter.  That is in direct conflict with BFL.  Did you not follow that logic?  

I'm not a zealot, but that's another way for you to deflect.  

If you had 2000 calories in one meal then your body couldn't process all at once and thereby not make the muscle gains, thereby changing your metabolic structure and musculature.  It would also cause insulin issues.  Those are significant issues.  So no, either way doesn't work.  I'm not saying you must have 6, but your argument that it simply doesn't matter is wrong.  

I'm not the righteous one here.  I haven't falsely accused you.  You have me.  I have shown where I understand some of your points, but you then inappropriately accuse me of not and saying I've said things I haven't.  

again LOL worthy. Where did I say eat 1 2000 cal meal. Common sense and all that.  Pretty sure I said 3 or 6 doesn't matter Or 4 or 5, there is even a lot of new data about intermittent fasting and the benefits of it getting all your kcals in a 8-10 hr window of the day. Again way more than 1 way to skin a cat. 

Sorry, you just spout off rhetoric and have yet to show anything to prove your points. Those studies prove exactly my points, especially the second one. You can poo poo the data all you want. BMI is not the be all end all but I challange you to show me a fit 235lb woman.  A woman with a BMI of 37 coupled with a healthy BF%. 

I'll wait.

Actually never mind. It is obviously a waste of time and e-breathe. Carry on.

I NEVER said you ate a 2000 calorie meal.  I was giving an example.  You are once again falsely accusing me.  You said number or meals didn't matter originally.  You failed to give reasonable parameters.  That wasn't something I made up.  I get intermittent fasting, but it isn't what you said.  

You haven't proven your points and just because you claim you have doesn't make it so.  You were the one who said you would.  The studies show reducing calories aids in weight loss and I NEVER QUESTIONED THAT.  For you to say the studies proved your point is to also say that I didn't agree that a calorie reduction would aid in weight loss and that's a lie.  

Did I ever say a BMI of 37 would be coupled with a good BF%?  No.  What I said was there needed to be more specifics because the variations and details matter.  Without them the information is moot.  

Now you're acting like it's me who didn't come through, but the reality is that you're frustrated that I know you didn't come through.  

patriciaae99 - No one ever said that calories didn't matter, but you did prove my point when you discussed muscle.  Lean body weight matters when it comes to your metabolism and to have all your calories in twinkies wouldn't help you build that.  It is therefore not only calories that matters.