can i lose enough weight by this date?

[endo_xeno]

Ok. so I just found out in about 6 weeks we are going to Destin, FL. and i really want to be alot skinnier before we go. i've been working out for about 1 month since i quit football this past christmas. So if I ate 6 small meals a day should i be able to lose the weight? I planned on doing so just not so soon. And what if I eat 3 healthy meals a day being that I am only 16. How much should it cost a week if I ate 6 meals a day. Tuna is cheap and I always eat tuna, or that chicken that has like 18 grams of protein. *For soccer monday, wed, and friday i have to go to school and run with the team around the field for an hour. so i am doing cardio everyday on top of lifting weights*

picture of me will be on my progress pictures.

[Thebigcorbowski]

Ok. so I just found out in about 6 weeks we are going to Destin, FL. and i really want to be alot skinnier before we go. i've been working out for about 1 month since i quit football this past christmas. So if I ate 6 small meals a day should i be able to lose the weight? I planned on doing so just not so soon. And what if I eat 3 healthy meals a day being that I am only 16. How much should it cost a week if I ate 6 meals a day. Tuna is cheap and I always eat tuna, or that chicken that has like 18 grams of protein. *For soccer monday, wed, and friday i have to go to school and run with the team around the field for an hour. so i am doing cardio everyday on top of lifting weights*

picture of me will be on my progress pictures.

Everybody has a different metabolism.

[endo_xeno]

Everybody has a different metabolism.

I know mines is slower, and im sure changing my diet will improve that. not saying i eat junk food all the time though.

[Thebigcorbowski]

I know mines is slower, and im sure changing my diet will improve that. not saying i eat junk food all the time though.

If you're looking just to lose weight, I'd cut your macronutrient and calorie levels below your maintenence level, and do 4-6 hours of cardio a week, with light lifting.

Seems to me your goal is the number on the scale and not the physical result.

[endo_xeno]

If you're looking just to lose weight, I'd cut your macronutrient and calorie levels below your maintenence level, and do 4-6 hours of cardio a week, with light lifting.

Seems to me your goal is the number on the scale and not the physical result.

all i want is to be a lot leaner before i go to the beach. have you seen my pic? the cardio and lifting i wont have a problem with. I saw someones post on here, he was a little smaller in the stomach than me but he went from a gut to a 6 pack in 6 weeks. wanting to know if i can do that. of course he took hydroxycut and other supplements. all im looking for is not to have my stomach poke out as much. just normal.

[bmsimon]

you want to be eating 6 (not 3) meals a day because it will help increase your metabolism. you need to be taking in less calories than your body burns every day AND DO CARDIO along with lifting

[Jete1]

you want to be eating 6 (not 3) meals a day because it will help increase your metabolism.

Meal frequency is irrelevant to weight loss.

[Thebigcorbowski]

you want to be eating 6 (not 3) meals a day because it will help increase your metabolism. you need to be taking in less calories than your body burns every day AND DO CARDIO along with lifting

Yeah, I was going to add this to my post, but was too lazy to.

Well first of all, do you want to look skinny OP?

If so, do light lifting. if you want to look shredded, that's different.

[Thebigcorbowski]

Meal frequency is irrelevant to weight loss.

No, no, no, and another no.

Shut up.

Eating 6 meals a day, well balanced, cuts more fat and more calories because your metabolism is constantly working as your body NEEDS food every 2-3 hours.

3 meals a day causes your body to story energy as fat to maintain it's daily goals.

[bmsimon]

Meal frequency is irrelevant to weight loss.

the less often you eat, the more likely your body is to store each meal as fat rather than use it. if you train your body to receive food and short intervals, it will have much less reason to store fat.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mohr16.htm

[bmsimon]

hmmmm...this is interesting...

The effect of meal frequency and protein concentration on the composition of the weight lost by obese subjects.
Garrow JS, Durrant M, Blaza S, Wilkins D, Royston P, Sunkin S.

1. Nitrogen balance, weight loss and resting metabolic rate were measured in thirty-eight obese inpatients on 3.4 MJ (800 kcal)/d diets over 3 weeks. 2. All subjects were fed on 13% protein-energy in three meals/d for the first week. 3. In weeks 2 or 3, using a cross-over design, ten subjects were fed on 15 or 10% protein-energy as three meals/d; fourteen subjects were fed on five or one meal/d with 13% protein-energy; and fourteen subjects were fed on 15% protein-energy as five meals/d or 10% protein-energy as one meal/d. 4. N loss was least on the high-protein week and frequent-meal week: the largest difference was found when these effects were combined (P less than 0.001). 5. When protein-energy was held constant at 13% N loss decreased significantly (P less than 0.01) between week 2 and 3, but when the protein-energy was manipulated there was no significant N conservation in the third week. This suggests that the protein:energy value is more important than meal frequency in the preservation of lean tissue. 6. Weight loss was also least on the 'high-protein' week and 'frequent-meal' week, but this result reached significance only when the effects were combined (P less than 0.05). 7. Resting metabolic rate decreased with time but was not significantly altered by the dietary regimens. 8. Therefore, during the first 3 weeks at an intake of 3.4 MJ/d, a diet with a high-protein concentration, fed as frequent small meals, is associated with better preservation of lean tissue than an isoenergetic diet with lower-protein concentration fed as fewer meals. There was no evidence that meal frequency or protein concentration affect the rate of fat loss.

[endo_xeno]

Yeah, I was going to add this to my post, but was too lazy to.

Well first of all, do you want to look skinny OP?

If so, do light lifting. if you want to look shredded, that's different.

i plan on being shredded. just not by the 6 weeks. that will take time i know that. i just need to get the fat off of my stomach before 6 weeks.
and from the posts. what i need to focus on is eating 6 meals a day.
if any of you dont mind me asking..how much do you spend on groceries for that much food. mean its not alot, but eating 6 times a day 7 days a week can get expensive.

[Thebigcorbowski]

My friend called me pretentious for eating the way I do.

he claims "eating regular meals 3 times a day is the best way."

****ing moron.

[bmsimon]

i plan on being shredded. just not by the 6 weeks. that will take time i know that. i just need to get the fat off of my stomach before 6 weeks.
and from the posts. what i need to focus on is eating 6 meals a day.
if any of you dont mind me asking..how much do you spend on groceries for that much food. mean its not alot, but eating 6 times a day 7 days a week can get expensive.

no more so than eating three times a day. the whole point is to eat smaller meals so you calorie intake at the end of the day is still equal to what it would be had you ate three meals, only it's spread out a little more

[HitTheFloor]

hmmmm...this is interesting...

a diet with a high-protein concentration, fed as frequent small meals, is associated with better preservation of lean tissue than an isoenergetic diet with lower-protein concentration fed as fewer meals. There was no evidence that meal frequency or protein concentration affect the rate of fat loss.

See it yet?

[naneerGynnhoJ]

Ok. so I just found out in about 6 weeks we are going to Destin, FL. and i really want to be alot skinnier before we go. i've been working out for about 1 month since i quit football this past christmas. So if I ate 6 small meals a day should i be able to lose the weight? I planned on doing so just not so soon. And what if I eat 3 healthy meals a day being that I am only 16. How much should it cost a week if I ate 6 meals a day. Tuna is cheap and I always eat tuna, or that chicken that has like 18 grams of protein. *For soccer monday, wed, and friday i have to go to school and run with the team around the field for an hour. so i am doing cardio everyday on top of lifting weights*

picture of me will be on my progress pictures.

1. starve
2. purge
3.????
4. skinny


I'm kidding, like everyone says.. Everyones body is different, I can't lose weight to save my life.. So coming from me, no.

I'm sure with the proper mind heart and diet, it would be obtainable.

[Jete1]

No, no, no, and another no.

Shut up.

Eating 6 meals a day, well balanced, cuts more fat and more calories because your metabolism is constantly working as your body NEEDS food every 2-3 hours.

3 meals a day causes your body to story energy as fat to maintain it's daily goals.

Your body doesn't NEED food every 2-3 hours. If so, why do we often go eight hours into the night sleeping without food?

the less often you eat, the more likely your body is to store each meal as fat rather than use it. if you train your body to receive food and short intervals, it will have much less reason to store fat.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mohr16.htm

That makes no sense.. Even if you store the meal, it's going to be used up eventually, as long as you're in a calorie deficit. The biggest part of weight loss is calories in vs. calories out. It doesn't matter if you're eating twice a day or nine times a day.

Since I talked about meal frequency in the BFFM book review, and how 99% of diet/fitness books keeps reiterating the same old jargon about how several small meals a day 'stokes/fires up your metabolism', I thought I might as well go ahead and clear up the confusion surrounding this subject.

Below is an abbreviated (and unedited) excerpt from my upcoming book, with the working title 'The 16-8 System'. An extensive introduction to my approach can be found here.


(from a chapter called "Dispelling the Myths")

?Eating several small meals a day is superior to a few large meals a day?

Despite being a highly impractical meal pattern for many people, this is by far the most common diet myth around; not only in the fitness community, but also in the mass media. As a consequence, it?s also the hardest diet myth to kill, as it?s being perpetually kept alive and repeated ad infinitum by the supplement industry, nutritionists that can?t put the research into proper context and people that just keeps repeating what the others are saying. Let?s look at what the actual studies can tell us about this topic.


Meal frequency and TEF


You?ve probably heard that eating smalls meals throughout the day ?stokes the metabolic fire? or is the ideal way to eat in order to control cravings and blood sugar; as consequence, this should also be the ideal way to eat for fat burning purposes. This belief is partly based on a gross and blatantly incorrect interpretation of research concerning TEF (Thermic Effect of Food).

Besides body weight, activity patterns and genetics, TEF is part of the equation that determines your metabolic rate for each given day. Paradoxically, ingesting energy costs energy and TEF is the increase in metabolic rate above basal conditions due to the cost of processing food for storage and use (ref). Simply put, every time you eat, the body expends a certain percentage of energy just to process the food you just ate. TEF varies between the macronutrients; protein is given a value of 20-25%, carbs 5% and fat 2-3% (ref). In a mixed diet, TEF is usually estimated to 10% of the calorie intake.

So, every time you eat, TEF comes into play and your metabolic rate increases in response to the meal you just ate. The problem here is that the research has been presented in such a way that it has lead people to believe that the net effect of TEF of several small meals would be greater than that of a few, large meals.

You see, TEF is directly proportional to the calories contained in the meal you just ate (ref). Assuming a diet of 2400 calories, with the same macronutrient composition, eating six small meals of 400 calories or three big meals of 800 calories, TEF will be exactly the same at the end of the day. The only thing that will differ between each meal pattern is the pattern of the spikes; six small meals will equal six small spikes in metabolic rates, while three big meals will equal three big spikes.

So, while eating several small meals a day will per definition ?keep the metabolic furnace burning?, three big meals will ?keep the metabolic furnace blasting?.

How about fat burning? As researchers have found, substrate metabolism is largely dictated by the meal you just ate and the macronutrient composition of your diet - how you split your meals have no consequence for the amount of fat oxidized at the end of the day (ref). Simply put, if you eat six small meals throughout the day, you will store and burn less fat between the meals compared to three meals a day, while you will store and burn more fat with three meals a day. Substrate metabolism will be different, but the net effect will be the same on either meal pattern.

Note that I say ?store?, because fat storage and fat burning is an ongoing process ? with six small meals you will store less AND burn less, and with three meals a day you will store more AND burn more. This is important to remember, as it can and has been twisted into ?you will store more fat with three meals a day?. Sure, if you measure fat storage on a meal per meal basis, which is insane, but on the other hand you will burn more fat in between the meals. Whether you store or lose body fat at the end of the day is a consequence of intake minus expenditure; not meal frequency.

In conclusion, different meal splits have no effect on metabolic rate or fat metabolism.

I must admit that I?m a bit amazed at how people keep missing the boat when it comes to meal frequency and TEF. This myth is also prevalent in the minds of many professionals, which is even more confusing. The research is there, right in front of your eyes if you know where to look, and there?s been several large scale, meticulously controlled and well designed studies on the topic of meal frequency and TEF. And still, people keep believing that several small meals a day will increase your energy expenditure beyond what fewer, large meals will do.

Then again, the powers that be, in this case the supplement industry, loves the fact that the myth is being kept alive. What do people eat when they are being told that they should eat six meals a day? Well, it sure isn?t six home cooked meals. Rather, people are downing meal replacement products, protein shakes and bars in between the main meals. This is a billion dollar industry that is partly being kept alive by erroneous beliefs. Bodybuilding and fitness magazines usually have no interest in presenting accurate information about the topic, as they derive a large part of their financing from supplement ads. In fact, many magazine writers have a vested interest in keeping the myth alive as well, themselves being owners of supplement companies that make millions out of selling protein powders and meal replacement bars.

Is a high frequency meal plan ever warranted? Sure, if your energy expenditure is extremely high, it would probably be a lot more comfortable to consume your calories in several meals rather than a few very large ones. The 300 lbs off-season bodybuilder or endurance athlete that needs 5-6000 calories a day to maintain body weight would be better advised eating 6 meals of 1000 calories rather than 3 meals with 2000 calories. Some other instances, such as some teenagers having a hard time putting on weight, would also warrant a high frequency meal plan simply because it would be hard getting all the calories in three meals.

However, these cases represent a minority of people. Getting enough calories in few meals doesn?t seem to be a problem for the great majority, and going by the feedback the 16-8 system has been getting, it?s definitely a more comfortable way to eat for many people.


Studies cited for this excerpt (in no particular order)

Denzer CM - The effect of resistance exercise on the thermic effect of food - International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism

Bellisle F et al. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.

Westerterp KR et al. Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9

Taylor MA , Garrow JS. Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients ina chamber calorimeter. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.

Jones PJ et al. Meal frequency influences circulating hormone levels but not lipogenesis rates in humans. Metabolism. 1995 Feb;44(2):218-23.

[Thebigcorbowski]

i plan on being shredded. just not by the 6 weeks. that will take time i know that. i just need to get the fat off of my stomach before 6 weeks.
and from the posts. what i need to focus on is eating 6 meals a day.
if any of you dont mind me asking..how much do you spend on groceries for that much food. mean its not alot, but eating 6 times a day 7 days a week can get expensive.

Way too much. For my monthly supplements alone (flax seed oil, fish poil, creatine, whey protein, multivitamin) it comes out to 60$.

I would recommend lots of non-instant oatmeal and apple sauce bought generic for your carbs for more bang for your buck, and lots of tuna and whey protein.


210 dude even at 6'0 you aren;t going to make it in 6 WEEKS EDIT, although you will start to look better.

Look at me I've lost 40 lbs in two months and look at the fat loss I STILL need:

[bmsimon]

See it yet?

oh yes, i saw that right away

i was surprised by the last line saying that meal frequency had no effect on rate of fat loss. maybe it was just this one study that had this conclusion, because everything i've heard and everything on bb.com says the opposite. but i searched pub med and this was really the only study like that i found.

but OP, i'd stick with the 6 meals a day, even if that study says meal frequency is not important. because, as hitthefloor pointed out, more frequent meals will preserve muscle mass if nothing else

[Thebigcorbowski]

Your body doesn't NEED food every 2-3 hours. If so, why do we often go eight hours into the night sleeping without food?



That makes no sense.. Even if you store the meal, it's going to be used up eventually, as long as you're in a calorie deficit. The biggest part of weight loss is calories in vs. calories out. It doesn't matter if you're eating twice a day or nine times a day.

Macronutrients are far more important than calories.

Are you saying that somebody who needs 2,000 calories a day to be at a calorie deficit based on their activity levels and BMR, ate two gigantic bowls of fettucine alfredo or two medium pizzas or a bunch of burgers twice a day would see not fat loss differences than somebody who eats a clean diet based on healthy macronutrients spread out over the day?

[endo_xeno]

Way too much. For my monthly supplements alone (flax seed oil, fish poil, creatine, whey protein, multivitamin) it comes out to 60$.

I would recommend lots of non-instant oatmeal and apple sauce bought generic for your carbs for more bang for your buck, and lots of tuna and whey protein.


210 dude even at 6'0 you aren;t going to make it in 6 WEEKS EDIT, although you will start to look better.

Look at me I've lost 40 lbs in two months and look at the fat loss I STILL need:

ahh. well it wont hurt to try atleast. thanks for the advice.

[bmsimon]

Macronutrients are far more important than calories.

Are you saying that somebody who needs 2,000 calories a day to be at a calorie deficit based on their activity levels and BMR, ate two gigantic bowls of fettucine alfredo or two medium pizzas or a bunch of burgers twice a day would see not fat loss differences than somebody who eats a clean diet based on healthy macronutrients spread out over the day?

the two need to be in balance. to see the best results, you should have a caloric deficit AND good macro counts

if i eat 5,000 calories of the cleanest food i can, i am still going to put on fat. and if i eat nothing but pizza all day, but the total calorie count is say 1,500 i will probably lose some weight because my body is not taking in its required energy.

[Jete1]

Macronutrients are far more important than calories.

Are you saying that somebody who needs 2,000 calories a day to be at a calorie deficit based on their activity levels and BMR, ate two gigantic bowls of fettucine alfredo or two medium pizzas or a bunch of burgers twice a day would see not fat loss differences than somebody who eats a clean diet based on healthy macronutrients spread out over the day?

Try reading next time. I said calories in vs. calories out is the biggest factor.. not the only factor. Nice try, though.

And yes, fat loss would still take place, as long as their in a calorie deficit. However, it's unstudied that if the ratio of fat:muscle would be the same or not. My guess is no, as they'd probably be missing many micronutrients and quite possibly not have adequate protein.

[Thebigcorbowski]

ahh. well it wont hurt to try atleast. thanks for the advice.

Stick in there dude.... I know that people like you and I WISH the results came quicker but trust me it's worth waiting. Time will pass no matter what you do. just hang in there and eventually you'll be shredded.

[Thebigcorbowski]

Try reading next time. I said calories in vs. calories out is the biggest factor.. not the only factor. Nice try, though.

And yes, fat loss would still take place, as long as their in a calorie deficit. However, it's unstudied that if the ratio of fat:muscle would be the same or not. My guess is no, as they'd probably be missing many micronutrients and quite possibly not have adequate protein.

You might see weight loss on both diets, but fat would definitely INCREASE under the formor diet I added.

You're still wrong. I mean, any pro bodybuilder worth his salt will tell you differently.

I mean, dude, I know people who use bull**** like Atkins Diet and Weight Watchers sure you lose a little bit of weight... REALLLLY SLOWLY and it doesn't make you look better the numbers on the scale go down but that's it. I used to do the "equally healthy 3 meal a day; approach for years and didn;t get jack, even with intense workouts. Now I eat a mathematically planned out diet, 5-6 meals a day every 2-3 hours and I am seing amazing results.

Besides, studies are useless, no matter which side they think they prove, as they only apply to a certain few individuals, and not an entire species/population.

[bmsimon]

Try reading next time. I said calories in vs. calories out is the biggest factor.. not the only factor. Nice try, though.

And yes, fat loss would still take place, as long as their in a calorie deficit. However, it's unstudied that if the ratio of fat:muscle would be the same or not. My guess is no, as they'd probably be missing many micronutrients and quite possibly not have adequate protein.

are you sure it hasn't been studied? i thought i've seen some before...i'll look.

btw, why are you in the red? you seem like you are smart enough and can make an argument and defend it

and corbowski, you have a point about studies being generalized, but they do give a starting point for the rest of use to go off of

[Jete1]

You might see weight loss on both diets, but fat would definitely INCREASE under the formor diet I added.

You're still wrong. I mean, any pro bodybuilder worth his salt will tell you differently.

I mean, dude, I know people who use bull**** like Atkins Diet and Weight Watchers sure you lose a little bit of weight... REALLLLY SLOWLY and it doesn't make you look better the numbers on the scale go down but that's it. I used to do the "equally healthy 3 meal a day; approach for years and didn;t get jack, even with intense workouts. Now I eat a mathematically planned out diet, 5-6 meals a day every 2-3 hours and I am seing amazing results.

Besides, studies are useless, no matter which side they think they prove, as they only apply to a certain few individuals, and not an entire species/population.

You're pointlessly arguing now.. I agree that the quality of macronutrients will have an affect on muscle:fat loss. It's not proven, and I cannot quote a source. But, like you, once I started actually following macronutrients more closely, my fat loss bombed down. You can see it in my sig.. From about October to January I was basically at 18% body fat the whole time. I ate around 2000 calories and saw no results. Then I started eating brown rice, not white.. Instead of ice cream, I'd have some blueberries. You get the point. Now my body fat's ~12%. You're arguing for nothing man..

[Jete1]

are you sure it hasn't been studied? i thought i've seen some before...i'll look.

btw, why are you in the red? you seem like you are smart enough and can make an argument and defend it

and corbowski, you have a point about studies being generalized, but they do give a starting point for the rest of use to go off of

I've never seen a study. There is a documentary called something like "Down Size Me" about eating at McDonalds for thirty days, three times a day... and losing weight. I haven't seen it, but I'm going to assume he wasn't consuming cheeseburgers. If he was, then it might be a good documentary to reference.

And I made a really stupid post like the first day I was here and got negged by someone who has almost 50,000 rep points now... So, I'm in red for a long, long time.

[Thebigcorbowski]

You're pointlessly arguing now.. I agree that the quality of macronutrients will have an affect on muscle:fat loss. It's not proven, and I cannot quote a source. But, like you, once I started actually following macronutrients more closely, my fat loss bombed down. You can see it in my sig.. From about October to January I was basically at 18% body fat the whole time. I ate around 2000 calories and saw no results. Then I started eating brown rice, not white.. Instead of ice cream, I'd have some blueberries. You get the point. Now my body fat's ~12%. You're arguing for nothing man..

Everybody has the potential to differ and do better on certain things, but I guarantee the vast majority of bodybuilders will follow MY diet ideals, and not yours.

[Jete1]

Everybody has the potential to differ and do better on certain things, but I guarantee the vast majority of bodybuilders will follow MY diet ideals, and not yours.

Where did I say I ate three meals a day? I usually eat five, because it's more convenient for me and I like cooking a lot during the Summer. Once again, you're putting words in my mouth.

And the majority of bodybuilders can eat upwards of 3000 calories, even on cuts. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't exactly feel the best stuffing almost 1000 calories in three times a day. Once again, convenience of eating less calories at each meal since you're taking in so many would result in six meals, not three.