With a bit more research I got to say you got it right if goal is pure WEIGHT loss. I had different goals with my weight loss. Since I was active my goals included muscle gain/weight loss. When you are trying to help your muscles recover you have to eat more often. But since I was still trying to lose weight (mostly fat) I ate less calories than my body requires to maintain weight.

If you guise are concerned about living longer with respect to diet, some studies have shown that a eat one day/fast one day/eat one day/fast one day...and so on, really kicks the lifespan up. The ex-wife worked on lifespan in C. elegans (and maybe mice?) at the Salk - tried to listen a bit here and there.

The problem with mice
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/science/testing-of-some-deadly-diseases-on-mice-mislead-report-says.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Vitaliy M. wrote:With a bit more research I got to say you got it right if goal is pure WEIGHT loss. I had different goals with my weight loss. Since I was active my goals included muscle gain/weight loss. When you are trying to help your muscles recover you have to eat more often. But since I was still trying to lose weight (mostly fat) I ate less calories than my body requires to maintain weight.

I agree that when you are highly active, you need to ensure proper glycogen re synthesis so eating more carbs more frequently helps. But honestly you could eat one HUGE carb/protein meal after your workout and that would suffice (although probably not pleasant).

These sort of fundamentals allow you to get "jacked" if you wanted (though climbers/ hikers generally don't), have very high level cardio conditioning, and burn fat. But trying to do all without the proper nutrition / recovery will cause your hormones to crash and your diet will fail.

Increase the Goji berry content of your diet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lBoJpx8Wn8
Also increase the amount of insects and arachnids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYikCMsh4pE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuB3kr3ckYE

Trust me, you won't regret these changes.

While most oils are bad, I think its good to have fish oils. They tend to have a lot of Omega 3 which is great for your skin and really isn't detrimental to your weight. Also, skipping meals is never a good idea. If you skip a meal, your body will start training itself to take on more of the calories that it digests. You will actually gain more weight by taking only a couple of meals. If you want to lose weight you should have 5 or 6 very small meals.

tylert27 wrote:While most oils are bad, I think its good to have fish oils. They tend to have a lot of Omega 3 which is great for your skin and really isn't detrimental to your weight. Also, skipping meals is never a good idea. If you skip a meal, your body will start training itself to take on more of the calories that it digests. You will actually gain more weight by taking only a couple of meals. If you want to lose weight you should have 5 or 6 very small meals.

You're just wrong, sorry.

Ze wrote:

tylert27 wrote:While most oils are bad, I think its good to have fish oils. They tend to have a lot of Omega 3 which is great for your skin and really isn't detrimental to your weight. Also, skipping meals is never a good idea. If you skip a meal, your body will start training itself to take on more of the calories that it digests. You will actually gain more weight by taking only a couple of meals. If you want to lose weight you should have 5 or 6 very small meals.

You're just wrong, sorry.

Curious of what part? The first of his post is correct. The latter is more likely based on individual metabolism.
http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/ ... fish-oil1/
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/omega-3 ... se-fat.htm

I followed a program for healthy life. I ate often, but little. On the other hand I ate salad consisting of possibly more different vegetables, and many fruits every time and stopped eating meat. In two months I lost about 10 kilograms and people were very surprised, especially the ones who want to loose weight. Actually nobody followed me - they can not give up their habits.

Marmaduke wrote:

Ze wrote:

tylert27 wrote:While most oils are bad, I think its good to have fish oils. They tend to have a lot of Omega 3 which is great for your skin and really isn't detrimental to your weight. Also, skipping meals is never a good idea. If you skip a meal, your body will start training itself to take on more of the calories that it digests. You will actually gain more weight by taking only a couple of meals. If you want to lose weight you should have 5 or 6 very small meals.

You're just wrong, sorry.

Curious of what part? The first of his post is correct. The latter is more likely based on individual metabolism.
http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/ ... fish-oil1/
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/omega-3 ... se-fat.htm

The skipping meals.

Reading through this thread in one go, I think it's a perfect shining example of how futile a debate this topic really is. Almost every single post is a refutation of the previous post, and there are as many arguments as posters...

For all the research on the topic, we don't seem to have a fucking clue how this shit works. The only constant seems to be - eat less, exercise more. Believe anything else you want, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.

Ben Beckerich wrote:Reading through this thread in one go, I think it's a perfect shining example of how futile a debate this topic really is. Almost every single post is a refutation of the previous post, and there are as many arguments as posters...

For all the research on the topic, we don't seem to have a fucking clue how this shit works. The only constant seems to be - eat less, exercise more. Believe anything else you want, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.

------------------------
Yeah, what most fail to realize is that there are a myriad of differences from one person to the next. Med conditions, natural metabolism, genetics, exercise history over the period of one's life....they all add up. If it were as simple as calories in vs calories out, every fricken person in 3rd world countries would be a sack of bones. However, there are dozens of impoverished countries with people on extreme low calorie diets and are working manual labor jobs, yet they have a 30-40% obesity rate. The calorie vs output argument has a honeycomb's worth full of holes. The problem is that it's easier to prove what doesn't work than what does work!

I think examples from the developing world are a little bit of a red herring. From the perspective of a resident of Mumbai who works on a major construction project, I would like to make a couple of observations.

For people who move out of poverty, carrying excess body fat is seen as a sign of success and you need to separate the growing middle class, many of whom are overweight, from those who survive on day laborer wages of about U.S $1.25 per day. You don't see overweight people working as day laborers in India, they are generally very small from a lifetime of insufficient protein and are very underweight.

If you did a time in motion study for day laborers you would also find that they are not particularly productive. The solution for a lack of productivity is to hire more undernourished day laborers.

Ben Beckerich wrote:Reading through this thread in one go, I think it's a perfect shining example of how futile a debate this topic really is. Almost every single post is a refutation of the previous post, and there are as many arguments as posters...

For all the research on the topic, we don't seem to have a fucking clue how this shit works. The only constant seems to be - eat less, exercise more. Believe anything else you want, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.

The debate is indeed futile as long as differing opinions aren't weighted based on the fundamental scientific research / review that goes into them.

I suspect many of the opinions shared are based on reading websites or specific books from hack authors like Taubes. Sadly, you have to really know that your source is unbiased & well-versed on the literature, or read published research yourself.

WyomingSummits wrote: Yeah, what most fail to realize is that there are a myriad of differences from one person to the next. Med conditions, natural metabolism, genetics, exercise history over the period of one's life....they all add up. If it were as simple as calories in vs calories out, every fricken person in 3rd world countries would be a sack of bones. However, there are dozens of impoverished countries with people on extreme low calorie diets and are working manual labor jobs, yet they have a 30-40% obesity rate. The calorie vs output argument has a honeycomb's worth full of holes. The problem is that it's easier to prove what doesn't work than what does work!

You're wrong on the extremely low calorie diet claim, sorry. That's based on self-reporting data that is known to be flawed methodology.

The calorie in vs out model almost always applies. Metabolic ward studies verify this. However, there are certainly many more factors that affect that equation, like hormonal changes.

The equation is really more like

Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores

RMR = resting metabolic reate
TEF = thermal effect of food
TEA = thermal effect of activity
NEAT = nervous energy expenditure

NEAT,TEA, RMR can easily change depending on how much you are dieting. In addition, obviously hunger is affected by both caloric deficit and bodyfat levels. For instance, the anti-starvation hormone (leptin) tanks at low bodyfat levels, which makes it harder to restrict "Energy In". People who are chronically overweight may end up with leptin resistance, which can affect their long-term "set-point" so that the body puts up a fight in terms of hunger and metabolism at higher bodyfats than when the person used to be skinny (another reason why adosclescent obesity is particularly troubling). And so on...

All the scientists are aware of these things. Fundamentally, weight loss is still about a caloric deficit, which basically means you are going to have to feel hungry (w/o drugs). Protein is important in that it has the most satiating effect, and also prevents lean body mass loss as you diet down. Otherwise, the battle is about how best to deal with hunger. Some people prefer more frequent meals, other are better on less frequent. Intermittent fasting actually bumps up metabolic rate for a day or so, contrary to popular belief. Macro composition is also highly variable. Do whatever works best, but you are going to have to have a caloric deficit.

Maintenance of weight loss is harder than losing weight. There are various tricks and drugs that may be needed depending on the individual.

Is the original method for weight loss to promote doing nothing physical at all?? Since climbing / hiking / mountaineering is a physical activity, calories, good fats and carbs are your best friend. Sugars = your glycogen = your muscle fuel. 2 : 1 carbs to protein ration is best for what most well seasoned athletes should take in. Eliminating sugars, rice and fats + DINNER!!!???? = a low performing body while doing anything other than thinking!