If you must indulge for a day, can you make it a 1 day a week thing? Or similar to Baron, maybe do something much smaller instead on a daily basis vs chowing down on the weekend. Also, how many hours before you go to bed do you stop eating? If you aren't already, drink a minimum of a gallon of water a day. That can help satisfy some cravings also or keep you a bit fuller. I second the HIIT statement, that will be the best bang for the buck. Not sure how old you are, but get your testosterone levels checked if you would ever consider TRT.
Absolute horse shit. The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies was published in 1997. It examined a bunch of different studies that compared daily meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals per day 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".
Baron... I'd like to hear your thoughts on the, I guess I'd say genetic differences between people. For example, brother Surf (to his credit) says that he would like to lose weight. So, if he does almost exactly what you do, he may or may not see the exact results, no? Kinda what I'm getting at is that different people need different plans and different expectations, dependent upon genes, body structure, age, etc. I think that some people have a much more difficult time with it than others; while all can, at least, improve. Your thoughts...
Not too long ago, researchers found a gene located on the 16th chromosome called the FTO gene. When the FTO gene malfunctions (mutates), researchers noticed a link to diabetes and the likelihood of having more fat. A later study looked at 704 adults with an average age of about 44 years old who wore an accelerometer for 7 days straight to track their movements. When researchers compared the results of the people with a normal functioning FTO gene against those with the mutated FTO gene, guess what they noticed? As you would expect, some people with the mutated FTO gene were fatter and generally more obese than the rest of the group, but some were not. So what happened with the people who had the screwed up gene but weren't any more obese than the people with the normal gene? What the researchers discovered is that the gene mutation was correlated to obesity..... but only at low activity levels. So if you have the “fat” version of the FTO gene, but are on the higher end of physical activity then guess what – chances are you’re not obese. While the FTP gene mutation increases your chance of becoming fat if you are relatively sedentary it doesn’t mean you will get fat. All you have to do is be physically active. So do genetics affect who you are? Yeah, of course they do. Does your environment and activity levels affect who you are? Of course. But both affect each other and who you are. Although nature may increase your likelihood of having some extra fat, changing your environment by being physically active trumps nature every time. The core problem with most people though is that they don't have anything wrong with the genes that are correlated to being overweight. They are obese simply because they consistently eat too much and move way too little.
Wow!! Thanks for the reply, Baron. Amazing how much devotion you have on this subject matter. (Perhaps you should start another website and call it E-Ting Lite...)
This whole fasting idea seems to run counter to almost every single diet book ive ever read, dont they all say to eat 6 small meals a day so your body is constantly eating and digesting food? I trust your judgement more than mine, as your results are indisputable, but if this works, it would be totally counter to everything ive ever read about losing weight.
Yes, the general wisdom is to eat 6 small meals per day to "keep your metabolism going". Although technically true, it implies that your metabolism somehow stops or slows down otherwise, which is bullshit. Here's all you need to know: Your metabolism ramps up in direct proportion to the size of meal you eat. So if you eat 3000 calories split up into six 500-calorie meals, your metabolism graph will have six small spikes with each spike correlating to the metabolism increase from each meal. But when you take that same amount of daily calories and split it into two meals of 1500 calories each, then your metabolism graph would have two massive spikes, with each spike followed by a long trail of decline. And those two spikes will be much higher than the little baby spikes caused by eating each of the six small meals. You've likely felt that increased body temperature in real life after eating a high calorie meal like bbq or a lot of pizza. You literally start sweating like you just ran around the block wide open even though you haven't moved from the dinner table. That's your metabolism in high gear trying to burn the crazy amount of calories you've ingested. No matter what, the net thermogenic effect of the food you eat is proportional to your overall calorie intake, not how those calories are split up throughout the day. That doesn't mean you can't eat 6 small meals per day. You certainly can, but most people will tell you it's a total pain in the ass to do consistently. Intermittent fasting allows you to eat real meals at normal times and still lose weight because you're going without food for an extended period of time afterwards. I would also like to mention that intermittent fasting is also in line with our evolutionary process as humans. I can assure you that our ancestors from thousands of years ago weren't carrying coolers containing 6 small meals every day. They ate, eventually got hungry again, and then hunted for food and basically ate huge when they had food available to eat. And last I checked, I haven't seen too many obese cave men.
Interesting thread, Baron. I may try this diet as I've had trouble sticking with others. This sounds like it might be an easier approach than my current approach of counting every calorie of every protein, carb, and fat daily...which is the only way I successfully lose fat and maintain muscle (I'm 56, and still train 4-5 days a week, often quite heavy.) Do you count calories in this routine, and still watch what types of foods you eat regarding how you get your protein, types of carbs, and fat? Also, can you break your window into two windows of 4 hours each? The reason I ask is my current workout time is mornings during which time I consume large amounts of protein in a 3-4 hour period (mostly whey) and carbs in pure juice form surrounding my workout, and then later in the day, eat solid carbs, fats, and proteins. Regarding the 100 rep routine: I read a variation of this in muscle mag a few years ago...the pro would do his absolute 10 rep max followed by his absolute 25 rep max. Then, he would do 100 reps at 25-40 percent of his 25 rep max. Incredibly brutal burn on that 100 rep low weight! Great results, even at my age. Really gets all your muscle fibers into the game. I only do this routine myself 2 or 3 times a year, each for a full muscle cycle (about a week each).