Require help regarding weight

[Parker]

The OP said they had issues with finding time to prepare meals (I'm guessing for lunch), I had the same problem, pick a day and prepare in advance, it's the best advice out there.

Lentil burgers are great because they keep really well, replace breadcrumbs with Quinoa Flakes (Coles) Quinoa is high in protein.

Look at sugars in your breakfast.

I think you need to eat more vegetables, I know you said you don't like that many of them... start liking them.

There's discussion over the quality of nutrients in fruit and I saw some minor discussion about fructose causeing fatness today (I didn't read into it - google is your friend)

There are some really awesome foods out there!

[Addictr3]

The OP said they had issues with finding time to prepare meals (I'm guessing for lunch), I had the same problem, pick a day and prepare in advance, it's the best advice out there.

Lentil burgers are great because they keep really well, replace breadcrumbs with Quinoa Flakes (Coles) Quinoa is high in protein.

Look at sugars in your breakfast.

I think you need to eat more vegetables, I know you said you don't like that many of them... start liking them.

There's discussion over the quality of nutrients in fruit and I saw some minor discussion about fructose causeing fatness today (I didn't read into it - google is your friend)

There are some really awesome foods out there!

I like how NOBODY has anytime anymore, yet they can watch TV, go for Smoke, Facebook etc...

[mants]

Any other suggestions for cereals that is weetabix, tried those the other day and didnt like them at all, felt like baby food or something

[PawPaw]

While I acknowledge weight can vary from day to day, I've got into the habit of weighing myself daily.

agree. daily weighing is like more regular feedback to keep a guided missile on course; so you only have to go a little off course before you have the feedback to recognize you need to get back on. this leads to smaller deviations away from your intended weight loss rate. The counter argument is wt fluctuates too much day to day to matter. But this is not so if you are eating the right portions and food types, weighing yourself first thing on arising after emptying b&b.

[PawPaw]

Any other suggestions for cereals that is weetabix, tried those the other day and didnt like them at all, felt like baby food or something

Fruit Loops. it's got pretty colors and has a nice sweet taste. and you can eat a box a day and not put on any weight.

[skull]

Any other suggestions for cereals that is weetabix, tried those the other day and didnt like them at all, felt like baby food or something

Fruit Loops. it's got pretty colors and has a nice sweet taste. and you can eat a box a day and not put on any weight.

Also it has the word fruit in it, so it obviously is good for you.

[ColinOldnCranky]

While exercise is an important component to me, food intake is still the biggest determinant.

btw pawpaws statement that fat goes to the belly first is not quite right. A bit goes everywhere all the time but with men the most does seem to more often go to the gut first. Less clear with women - some will stack it on the bust, some on the outer thighs, some .... We are all different and most of us learn pretty quickly where it goes for ourselves.

But once it does go on, as Pawpaw indicates, it's FIFO.

[Parker]

Any other suggestions for cereals that is weetabix, tried those the other day and didnt like them at all, felt like baby food or something

There's a product called the muesli http://themuesli.com.au/ and it's very low in sugar, it isn't cheap, but if it's the most expensive change you make it's not the worst thing in the world. We always work towards the suggested serving size, add yogurt and fruit to taste. Learn to like it, I never used to like these things either but I've learnt to think of them as natural and not tastless.

You need to change your thought process, give it a few weeks and you'll love it (I hope)

[Parker]

The OP said they had issues with finding time to prepare meals (I'm guessing for lunch), I had the same problem, pick a day and prepare in advance, it's the best advice out there.

Lentil burgers are great because they keep really well, replace breadcrumbs with Quinoa Flakes (Coles) Quinoa is high in protein.

Look at sugars in your breakfast.

I think you need to eat more vegetables, I know you said you don't like that many of them... start liking them.

There's discussion over the quality of nutrients in fruit and I saw some minor discussion about fructose causeing fatness today (I didn't read into it - google is your friend)

There are some really awesome foods out there!

I like how NOBODY has anytime anymore, yet they can watch TV, go for Smoke, Facebook etc...

That's exactly right, I used to watch heaps of television, I had foxtel because I couldn't get reception without putting a huge mo fo arial on my roof. Sometime last year I gave up television because I realised that I didn't have enough time to get things done. Now I can cook and make healthy choices, I watch television sometimes at the boyfriends house or I go to my mums and cook dinner for her and watch some tv there but there really isn't anything worthwhile on. Sometimes we watch the news.

And there's always re-runs of MASH playing in the house, and I've never cooked so much in my life. I'm loving all these flavours and recipes that I used to be scared of (too many ingredients), here's what I made for dinner last night http://www.theperfectpantry.com/2012/01 ... sauce.html

[GrantMD]

For me, Oats of a morning are a winner. Make a batch the night before and then heat up each morning adding blueberries or strawberries for a bit of taste and goodness. Usually have with a slice of toast and that keeps me going all morning

[skull]

But once it does go on, as Pawpaw indicates, it's FIFO.

Don't you mean FILO - First in Last Out, or in the case of fat First on Last off.

[licensed]

For me, Oats of a morning are a winner. Make a batch the night before and then heat up each morning adding blueberries or strawberries for a bit of taste and goodness. Usually have with a slice of toast and that keeps me going all morning

thats interesting, mainly because there is no protein in that breakfast..

[vander]

For me, Oats of a morning are a winner. Make a batch the night before and then heat up each morning adding blueberries or strawberries for a bit of taste and goodness. Usually have with a slice of toast and that keeps me going all morning

thats interesting, mainly because there is no protein in that breakfast..

But oats are high in protein......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oat you can see the values there.
Plenty of protein in the meal especially for a breakfast that should be mainly carbohydrates to get you through the day its at the end of the day/post training you need to protein to rebuild muscle.

[GrantMD]

For me, Oats of a morning are a winner. Make a batch the night before and then heat up each morning adding blueberries or strawberries for a bit of taste and goodness. Usually have with a slice of toast and that keeps me going all morning

thats interesting, mainly because there is no protein in that breakfast..

But oats are high in protein......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oat you can see the values there.
Plenty of protein in the meal especially for a breakfast that should be mainly carbohydrates to get you through the day its at the end of the day/post training you need to protein to rebuild muscle.

Exactly, along with the cup of milk mixed in with the Oats, which contains sufficient protein in itself.

I think you'll find that Oats is high up on the list for quality breakfasts. I would certainly prefer this as opposed to bacon and eggs

[DaveOZ]

I have porridge for breakfast every day. Keeps me full until lunch. I have Carmans brand with fruit and seeds. Very tasty.

[Mrfenejeans]

I like how NOBODY has anytime anymore, yet they can watch TV, go for Smoke, Facebook etc...

+1 I watch TV etc and Love to do so however it never gets in the way of my self or my partner living our lives off of the couch or preparing food etc.(I must admit my missus is good to me and likes to make my dinner )

After a recent group ride i had a conversation along the lines of this..
other rider "so how much do you ride a week?"
to which my response was "After a lull over Christmas I've finally got my self back up to doing over 250km's a week"
which came with a "(suprised look on there face) oh so you commute to work???"
to which i replied "No. I just make time"

[Addictr3]

For me, Oats of a morning are a winner. Make a batch the night before and then heat up each morning adding blueberries or strawberries for a bit of taste and goodness. Usually have with a slice of toast and that keeps me going all morning

thats interesting, mainly because there is no protein in that breakfast..

But oats are high in protein......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oat you can see the values there.
Plenty of protein in the meal especially for a breakfast that should be mainly carbohydrates to get you through the day its at the end of the day/post training you need to protein to rebuild muscle.

Meal timing is personal but usually is irrelevant; you dont have to hit your protein at the "end" of the day; but you NEED to hit protein to help recover. Body doesnt go oh its 12pm, wheres my protein at?

Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.

Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.

A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.

B) Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.

C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.

What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.

However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.

Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.

The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:

"Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".

Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.

Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.

Origin

Seeing how conclusive and clear research is on the topic of meal frequency, you might wonder why it is that some people, quite often RDs in fact, keep repeating the myth of "stoking the metabolic fire" by eating small meals on a frequent basis. My best guess is that they've somehow misunderstood TEF. After all, they're technically right to say you keep your metabolism humming along by eating frequently. They just missed that critical part where it was explained that TEF is proportional to the calories consumed in each meal.

Another guess is that they base the advice on some epidemiological studies that found an inverse correlation between high meal frequency and body weight in the population. What that means is that researchers may look at the dietary pattern of thousands individuals and find that those who eat more frequently tend to weigh less than those who eat less frequently. It's important to point out that these studies are uncontrolled in terms of calorie intake and are done on Average Joes (i.e. normal people who do not count calories and just eat spontaneously like most people).

There's a saying that goes "correlation does not imply causation" and this warrants further explanation since it explains many other dietary myths and fallacies. Just because there's a connection between low meal frequencies and higher body weights, doesn't mean that low meal frequencies cause weight gain. Those studies likely show that people who tend to eat less frequently have:

* Dysregulated eating patterns; the personality type that skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, undereat during the day, and overeat in the evening. They tend to be less concerned with health and diet than those who eat more frequently.

* Another feasible explanation for the association between low meal frequencies and higher body weight is that meal skipping is often used as a weight loss strategy. People who are overweight are more likely to be on a diet and eat fewer meals.

The connection between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general population, and vice versa, is connected to behavioral patterns - not metabolism.

[DaveOZ]

Addictr3,

Thanks for taking the time to make these posts, I find it very interesting reading. There is so much BS out there in the diet/nutrition world. I do not have enough knowledge to know if what you're saying is right, but it make sense and I have found that most of this stuff is common sense!!

[skull]

wow science. My brain just asploded.

good post.

[PawPaw]

Seeing how conclusive and clear research is on the topic of meal frequency, you might wonder why it is that some people, quite often RDs in fact, keep repeating the myth of "stoking the metabolic fire" by eating small meals on a frequent basis. My best guess is that they've somehow misunderstood TEF. After all, they're technically right to say you keep your metabolism humming along by eating frequently. They just missed that critical part where it was explained that TEF is proportional to the calories consumed in each meal.

Addictr, I appreciate you read the literature, but I don't think it is wise to draw such emphatic conclusions from one paper, let alone one review paper, let alone one specialist field of study.

Yes TEF may be equal independent of feeding frequency. However, we are humans and there's other variables apart from TEF at play. i.e appetite/cravings, and these have not yet been reduced to one variable that can be tested for up or down regulation. AFAIK, dietitians recommend Caloric intake every 2-2.5 hours because it helps keep blood sugar more stable.

Imagine, if you will, a study that compares 2600 Calories of simple sugar intake versus 2600 Calories of Paleo diet meals.
Yes, TEF might be equal over 24 hours (though unlikely because protein requires more energy to breakdown), however, blood sugar is likely to be all over the place and hypoglycemics are going to be crawling up the wall, screaming for a sugar fix.

So appetite is never just one variable, such as TEF. Human bodies are more complicated than anything designed by man's mind. We are all susceptible to dysregulation of any one of numerous metabolic pathways in energy provision and expenditure. It is unwise to try and reduce the obesity epidemic to behavioral issues alone. There's much research that shows a baby's appetite and blood sugar stability is strongly influenced by the mind state and diet of the mother when in the womb, and even the food the mother eats that her breast milk is derived from.

As Darwin would conclude, we are NOT all EQUAL.

[Addictr3]

Yes TEF may be equal independent of feeding frequency. However, we are humans and there's other variables apart from TEF at play. i.e appetite/cravings, and these have not yet been reduced to one variable that can be tested for up or down regulation. AFAIK, dietitians recommend Caloric intake every 2-2.5 hours because it helps keep blood sugar more stable.

Imagine, if you will, a study that compares 2600 Calories of simple sugar intake versus 2600 Calories of Paleo diet meals.
Yes, TEF might be equal over 24 hours (though unlikely because protein requires more energy to breakdown), however, blood sugar is likely to be all over the place and hypoglycemics are going to be crawling up the wall, screaming for a sugar fix

RE: Pawpaw see below.

[Addictr3]

There's no doubt that meal frequency is highly individual. However, absolute statements claiming smaller meals are superior for hunger and appetite control are untrue and are based on studies using methods that greatly differed from real-world meal patterns. Current research with a normal meal pattern and protein intakes that are closer to what can be seen in a typical non-retarded diet, suggests superior appetite control when eating fewer and larger meals.


Participants were monitored during four different 11-hour trials separated by 1-2 weeks. They were given three or six meals and asked to fill out a questionnaire relating to hunger and satiety with regular intervals. Blood samples were obtained to gauge levels of the hunger hormones ghrelin and PYY, as well as blood glucose and insulin. In random order, each subject ate the following diets:

Medium-protein: 14% protein (~0.8 g protein/kg per day), 60% carbohydrate, and 26% fat.

High-protein: 25% protein (~1.4 g protein/kg per day), 49% carbohydrate, and 26% fat. The additional dietary protein in this diet was primarily from lean pork and egg products.

Both these diets were consumed with varying meal frequencies: six smaller meals (every second hour) or three larger meals (every fourth hour). Diets were set to maintain participants in energy balance (2100-2200 kcal) during the trials.

The researchers found that the high-protein diet consistently came out on top in comparison to the medium-protein diet regardless of meal frequency. No big surprise there.

Also the 3-meal high-protein diet scored the highest on all questions relating to satiety overall. Blood glucose and insulin were a tad lower on the higher meal frequency, but I suspect this might have something to do with the trial period being 11 hours. Had the trial period been longer the differences might have evened out.

Here are some highlights from the full text version of the study:

"Whereas higher protein intake increased daily perceived fullness, frequent eating led to reductions in daily perceived fullness. These findings were further supported by the elevated PYY concentrations observed with higher vs. normal protein intake and by the reduced PYY concentrations observed with frequent vs. infrequent eating."

"These data strengthen the current literature indicating that increased dietary protein leads to increased satiety, refute the long-standing assumption that increased eating frequency has beneficial effects, and suggest that overweight and obese men might achieve better appetite control by consuming three higher protein meals per day."

"In summary, the findings that higher protein intake and lower eating frequency independently promote daily perceived satiety in conjunction with comparable differences in the satiety hormone PYY suggest that overweight and obese men might achieve better appetite control by consuming three higher protein meals per day."

[Addictr3]

Pawpaw you suggest that dietitian "experts" recommend eating small meals every so often will help you avoid hunger pangs, provide you with stable energy throughout the day and keep you mentally sharp. Contrary to what you and many people believe, blood sugar is extremely well-regulated and maintained within a tight range in healthy people. It does not swing wildly up and down like a chimpanzee on meth and it doesn't plummet from going a few hours without food. Or even a full day without food. Or a week without food for that matter.

You seem to believe that people will suffer severe hunger and mental impairment from not eating every so often. Consider for a second the evolutionary consequences for survival if this was true. Given that regular periods of fasting, even famine, was a natural part of our past, do you think we'd be here today if we were unable to function when obtaining food was most critical? I have seen and heard friends, complain of lethargy and mental haze if they didn't get to eat for a few hours. It's completely absurd.

Maintaining blood sugar is of very high priority and we have developed efficient pathways that will make it happen even under extreme conditions. If you were to fast for 23 hrs and then go for a 90 min cycle at 70-75% VO2max, your blood sugar after the run would be identical to the same run performed in the fed state. It would take no less than three days or 84 hours of fasting to reach blood sugar levels low enough to affect your mental state; and this is temporary, as your brain adapts to the use of ketones. During 48 hours of fasting, or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range no measure of cognitive performance is negatively affected.

What about blood sugar and hunger? Blood sugar is one of many short-term feedback mechanisms used to regulate hunger and the notion which exists to say that low blood sugar may cause hunger is correct. Low just means lower range. This is subject to numerous confounders, such as your habitual diet, energy intake and genetics. Most importantly perhaps, it's subject to entrained meal patterns, regulated by ghrelin and other metabolic hormones. In essence, this means that blood sugar follows the meal pattern you are used to. This is relevant for those who fear blood sugar issues and hunger from regular periods of fasting, as it serves to explain why people can easily adapt to regular periods of fasting without negative effects.

[PawPaw]

Addictr, the study you referred to was for energy balance. I was thinking more of people trying to lose weight on a negative energy balance diet.

As for blood sugar control, if it was so well regulated, then no one would develop insulin resistance, become pre diabetic, or developed adult onset diabetes. All of these are increasing at epidemic proportions, even in teens.

[Comedian]

Addictr, the study you referred to was for energy balance. I was thinking more of people trying to lose weight on a negative energy balance diet.

As for blood sugar control, if it was so well regulated, then no one would develop insulin resistance, become pre diabetic, or developed adult onset diabetes. All of these are increasing at epidemic proportions, even in teens.

Addictr3 did say in healthy people.. and regardless of whether diabetes and related illnesses are increasing in frequency or not... I'm sure the vast majority of people do not suffer any of these issues.

He is right to that in an evolutionary sense humans just didn't have food available all the time like we do now and I would argue that it's only probably since WWII that the developed we have had access to food at our finger tips (there is something to think about).

I talked to a guy who has spent time with first contact aboriginals. Apparently they used to get up... look around... and just walk off in a direction and hope to find some food. Never mind wheet bix and a banana before they could leave the house.