Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Nutrition > General Nutrition

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-26-2007, 06:20 PM   #1
Jeff Bearden
New Member
 
Jeff Bearden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 21
Default Another Study "Shoots Down" The Idea of Eating 6 Small Meals Per Day

I read the comments on this study on Rusty Moore's website. He gives a link to the abstract. He's an advocate of IF and has several posts about it. Here's the link

http://fitnessblackbook.com/dieting_...meals-per-day/
Jeff Bearden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2007, 08:09 PM   #2
Mike ODonnell
Senior Member
 
Mike ODonnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,596
Default

I think I have seen reference to this study before....but still interesting...also an interesting site Rusty has....thanks for the link
__________________
Fitness Spotlight
The IF Life
Mike ODonnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2007, 02:44 PM   #3
Brad Davis
New Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 19
Default

I'd advise folks to acquire the full text and read it themselves rather than the review. I did this last night. It is nowhere near as favorable to IF as the review indicates.

I IF, and love it now that I found a good feeding window time for me, and was interested in the paper.

Highlights:

Total cholesterol, HDL, and LDL rose significantly more for the IFers.

Blood pressure rose more for the IFers.

The IFers became hungrier, felt less full, etc. as time went on--kinda the opposite that I would've expected.

They measured bodyfat using a notoriously inaccurate method--one of those bodyfat measuring scales.

The lean body mass, etc. changed very little.

They used 3 meals as the control, not 6.

I definitely won't stop IFing because of the study, but it's nothing like the review.
Brad Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2007, 12:41 PM   #4
Gant Grimes
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,373
Default

Thanks for posting this, Brad. I read blog article, and...hell, the ABSTRACT of the cited study doesn't support the article, much less the actual study.

I read a few more articles on the website, and it was more of the same, traditional Globo-Gym/Weider/Maxim talk in "top secret" packaging.
__________________
"It should be more like birthday party than physics class." | Log | 70's Big
Gant Grimes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2007, 08:48 AM   #5
Brad Davis
New Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gant Grimes View Post
Thanks for posting this, Brad. I read blog article, and...hell, the ABSTRACT of the cited study doesn't support the article, much less the actual study.

I read a few more articles on the website, and it was more of the same, traditional Globo-Gym/Weider/Maxim talk in "top secret" packaging.
Greetings Gant,

I agree completely.

There's also the Aragon article (not journal paper--a big difference) that used that study to over-reach in the other direction (IMO). At this point, I'm starting to think that I need to get the original journal paper and never go by any review. Fortunately, I can get these papers very easily and free.

I should've placed more caveats on my "highlights" of the pilot study. I do research for a living, but not medical or physiological research. MY comments should be taken with a grain of salt also, although I did my best. I'd describe the pilot study as simply being inconclusive, although a few interesting trends *might've* been starting to emerge.

In the end, the proof will be in the IF Black Box pudding.

Kind regards,
DBD
Brad Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.