dropping lbs with no gym membership

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's not right.

Grazing animals? You think so? It's been a while since I chewed cud.
Actually, it is right.

Grazing doesn't just refer to grass. It means we eat continually, rather than relying on one big kill and one big meal for food. We also have the vestigial appendix which was probably for helping to break down harder to digest plants.

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Click to expand...

The original human eating pattern was much more intermittent, depending on what you could kill or find.
Rubbish. Look at our closest relative, the chimpanzee. They spend ALL DAY constantly grazing on fruits and plants, and eating things like termines and ants. They are certainly grazing animals, that occasionally hunt, not the other way around. Even their source of protein (termite) is not eaten in one big meal, but rather slowly eaten over the course of an hour or so of poking around in a termite mound.

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Click to expand...

Hunger is the mechanism by which we are spurred to go track something down and eat it
I get hungry ever 2-4 hours, unless I stuff myself silly. I can ignore it, especially as I'm not that active for an animal, but it's there. It's also easy to ignore because I know I can stand up and have food almost any time I like. If I had nothing else to occupy my mind, and didn't know were my next meal was, I would go find something to eat every 2-4 hours. ESPECIALLY if I was only eating fruits and very low calorie foods. I'd probably eat constantly (just like a chimp).

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Click to expand...

Early humans probably did go ahead and eat whatever berries, vegetables, etc. were around at the time, but the majority of calories came from meat - our ancestors' protein intake was a major factor in our evolution, particularly in brain development.
While we resembled Chimps, our diets would have been similar. Fruits and vegitables, with some meat. While meat would have been important, it would have in no way been the majority of our diet.
When we became nomadic, we needed to graze on fruits and collect them while we followed the herd. I admit our meat intake would have been higher at this time. However we are pack animals and any kill made would have had to feed everyone, not just one person. At this point we also already had tools so we'd already made a big step in intelligence.
Then, when we settled down and domesticated animals, we did it because we could plant vegitables. There's no point settling down if you can just follow a herd and kill what you need. You settle down when you start planting food in the ground.
Once civilization sprung up, wheat or rice became the backbone of our diet.

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Click to expand...

Anyway, my point wasn't that 6 meals a day is a bad way to go, it's just that research has shown absolutely no difference between 3 and 6 meals a day when calories and macros are controlled. I pick 3 because I like it better, but 6 is fine too if that works for you.
I'm dubious of this research. I'll have to hunt around and see if I can find some to support the 6 meals a day diet. The fact that you pick 3 meals a day though shows that you are a grazing animal, because 3 meals a day is HEAPS for a predator. I only fed my cat once a day and it was a lot smaller with a much faster metabolism than me. Cats can also live far longer than humans without food.

After all that though, I must agree that 3 meals a day is sufficient, especially if you are just trying to maintain weight, or put on weight. But for people who have problems with snacking on junk food, or pig out during main meals (almost everyone), or are trying to loose weight eating 6 small meals a day is a FANTASTIC way to control hunger. It also stops you from slipping into the 'not having enough energy' zone, which slows down your metabolism. I suggest everyone at least give it a try. A meal doesn't have to be much. An apple and some nuts is enough to count for one meal.

Originally Posted by drizzt3117

Click to expand...

Clearly boxers never touch weights...

your sarcasm is lost on me. Tua is probably the only one that lifts. I don't know tysons regime when he was at his prime, but I doubt cus d amato had him lifting weights. It was widely rumoured that the only thing he did with weights was shoulder shrugs. Most of the old school guys never touched weights. I doubt holyfield lifted in his earlier days either, most likely later in his career because old boxer needs to rely a lot on raw strength. But I'm not saying a boxer shouldn't lift, but when they do its usually to aid in certain weaknesses of theirs. you will never see a boxer at the gym working every muscle with a dumbell.

A brief search on the interwebs:
http://www.bloodyknux.com/forum/arch...hp?t-2267.html

So he only uses weights for his shoulders. But, LOOK AT THAT ROUTINE!! He spends ALL BLOODY DAY working out. I don't have that much time. Weights may not be the way he goes, and what he does seems to work, but weights are more efficient.

Besides, the point of this thread is dropping lbs, not putting them on. You certainly do not need to go to the gym to loose weight. I like the gym because it gives me fairly precise feedback on how much energy I've used, which is handy, but I used to just run and that worked fine.

I don't know tysons regime when he was at his prime, but I doubt cus d amato had him lifting weights.

Click to expand...

A cursory search had references to Tyson doing hundreds of barbell shrugs daily and other references to him lifting weights, including benching 200 lb as a young teenager.

I doubt holyfield lifted in his earlier days either, most likely later in his career because old boxer needs to rely a lot on raw strength. But I'm not saying a boxer shouldn't lift, but when they do its usually to aid in certain weaknesses of theirs. you will never see a boxer at the gym working every muscle with a dumbell.

Click to expand...

As far as holyfield... well...

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=197338

Originally Posted by dylanmillerr

Click to expand...

i try to run 10 miles a week and am pretty good at keeping up with that but what else would you recommend for dropping all the upper body mass thanks

10 miles a week is not much, so I would suggest increasing that a lot.

Originally Posted by drizzt3117

Click to expand...

A cursory search had references to Tyson doing hundreds of barbell shrugs daily and other references to him lifting weights, including benching 200 lb as a young teenager.



As far as holyfield... well...

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=197338

I believe that tyson may have done bench presses as well as shrugs, but at his earlier years, or should I say prime years, there's no way he was doing any thing more with weights. and holyfield, I was wrong about him I guess. However, there are tons of great boxers that never lifted. I know for sure ali and frazier didn't, and i'm pretty sure others from their era didn't either. But anyways, my original point was that weights aren't the only way to get big, and many boxers have showed that in the past. Sure calisthentics and jogging may not be the most time efficient way to reach your goals but **** that noise, I never said they were. I don't think exercise should be a short term goal anyways. Doing bodyweight exercises insures that you can do a large part of your routine anywhere which can make things a lot easier when you're trying to stay consistent.

Originally Posted by Shraka

Click to expand...

Actually, it is right.

Grazing doesn't just refer to grass. It means we eat continually, rather than relying on one big kill and one big meal for food. We also have the vestigial appendix which was probably for helping to break down harder to digest plants.


Rubbish. Look at our closest relative, the chimpanzee. They spend ALL DAY constantly grazing on fruits and plants, and eating things like termines and ants. They are certainly grazing animals, that occasionally hunt, not the other way around. Even their source of protein (termite) is not eaten in one big meal, but rather slowly eaten over the course of an hour or so of poking around in a termite mound.


I get hungry ever 2-4 hours, unless I stuff myself silly. I can ignore it, especially as I'm not that active for an animal, but it's there. It's also easy to ignore because I know I can stand up and have food almost any time I like. If I had nothing else to occupy my mind, and didn't know were my next meal was, I would go find something to eat every 2-4 hours. ESPECIALLY if I was only eating fruits and very low calorie foods. I'd probably eat constantly (just like a chimp).


While we resembled Chimps, our diets would have been similar. Fruits and vegitables, with some meat. While meat would have been important, it would have in no way been the majority of our diet.
When we became nomadic, we needed to graze on fruits and collect them while we followed the herd. I admit our meat intake would have been higher at this time. However we are pack animals and any kill made would have had to feed everyone, not just one person. At this point we also already had tools so we'd already made a big step in intelligence.
Then, when we settled down and domesticated animals, we did it because we could plant vegitables. There's no point settling down if you can just follow a herd and kill what you need. You settle down when you start planting food in the ground.
Once civilization sprung up, wheat or rice became the backbone of our diet.


I'm dubious of this research. I'll have to hunt around and see if I can find some to support the 6 meals a day diet. The fact that you pick 3 meals a day though shows that you are a grazing animal, because 3 meals a day is HEAPS for a predator. I only fed my cat once a day and it was a lot smaller with a much faster metabolism than me. Cats can also live far longer than humans without food.

After all that though, I must agree that 3 meals a day is sufficient, especially if you are just trying to maintain weight, or put on weight. But for people who have problems with snacking on junk food, or pig out during main meals (almost everyone), or are trying to loose weight eating 6 small meals a day is a FANTASTIC way to control hunger. It also stops you from slipping into the 'not having enough energy' zone, which slows down your metabolism. I suggest everyone at least give it a try. A meal doesn't have to be much. An apple and some nuts is enough to count for one meal.

Good lord...

Well, I don't really care about getting into an argument about the definition of "grazing." But if 3 meals a day is grazing to you, would 6 be ultra-grazing?

Anyway, your reasons for eating 6 meals a day and your conclusion ^ point back to my earlier point, which was... do what works for you. I think it's ridiculous to make a general statement that 6 meals are better for anyone who is trying to control hunger. I'm a case in point. I've tried it and don't like it very much. And I hope we all know that the best diet is the one you can stick to.

I don't have links, but try looking up the following studies:

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

Rashidi MR. Effects of nibbling and gorging on lipid profiles, blood glucose and insulin levels in healthy subjects.
Saudi Med J. 2003 Sep;24(9):945-8.

Swindells YE, The metabolic response of young women to changes in the frequency of meals. Br J Nutr. 1968 Dec;22(4):667-80.

Iwao S, et al. Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1996 Oct;6(5):265-72.

Young CM, Frequency of feeding, weight reduction, and body composition. J Am Diet Assoc. 1971 Nov;59(5):466-72.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, et al. Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism. Int J Obese Relat Metab Disord. 1993 Jan;17(1):31-6.

Øyvind H, et al. The effect of meal frequency on body composition during 12 weeks of strength training (Abstract). 12th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science, 2007.


There are more. I got these from the (good) article here.

I think if you look at the research, you'll find that meal frequency really doesn't make much difference. What matters is diet adherence.

Originally Posted by beano

Click to expand...

I believe that tyson may have done bench presses as well as shrugs, but at his earlier years, or should I say prime years, there's no way he was doing any thing more with weights. and holyfield, I was wrong about him I guess. However, there are tons of great boxers that never lifted. I know for sure ali and frazier didn't, and i'm pretty sure others from their era didn't either. But anyways, my original point was that weights aren't the only way to get big, and many boxers have showed that in the past. Sure calisthentics and jogging may not be the most time efficient way to reach your goals but **** that noise, I never said they were. I don't think exercise should be a short term goal anyways. Doing bodyweight exercises insures that you can do a large part of your routine anywhere which can make things a lot easier when you're trying to stay consistent.

That argument is like saying Babe Ruth ate like crap and got drunk all the time so modern baseball players should do the same thing. There's also a huge genetic component to the size issue. Body weight exercises are fine, but in order to maximize your results you're going to need more resistance (at the very least on legs)

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Click to expand...

Good lord...

Well, I don't really care about getting into an argument about the definition of "grazing."
Perhaps you shouldn't make snide jokes about the definition of it then.

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Click to expand...

But if 3 meals a day is grazing to you, would 6 be ultra-grazing?
They're both grazing. One is grazing more frequently.

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Click to expand...

Anyway, your reasons for eating 6 meals a day and your conclusion ^ point back to my earlier point, which was... do what works for you.
Agreed. But I think 6 meals a day is well worth trying. I don't think your statements that you're sick of it or that it's not needed are required here. If it doesn't work, of course they are going to revert to 3 meals a day.

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Click to expand...

I think it's ridiculous to make a general statement that 6 meals are better for anyone who is trying to control hunger. I'm a case in point. I've tried it and don't like it very much. And I hope we all know that the best diet is the one you can stick to.
I don't. It's worked for me and everyone I've spoken to who's tried it. Most of the very athletic people I know eat 5-6 meals a day. Personally I settled on 5.

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Click to expand...

I don't have links, but try looking up the following studies:
Will do.

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Click to expand...

I think if you look at the research, you'll find that meal frequency really doesn't make much difference. What matters is diet adherence.
So eating one meal a day is also healthy then?

I think most people would find eating smaller meals more often are great for keeping hunger under control. If they don't, then by all means go back to 3 meals a day.

What point are you trying to make, exactly? My point was that meal frequency really doesn't matter that much. Notice that I'm not saying that 3 meals a day is better than 6. I'm also not saying that 6 is worse. I'm saying that neither is better or worse, they're just different schedules, so pick whichever one works for you. You've picked 5. That's great. I'm glad you're happy with that. My comment that I didn't like 6 small meals a day was perfectly relevant. By the way, I've been fairly lean and maintained muscle on 1 meal a day. If I'd known better at the time, I probably would have done things differently, but it did work. I'd imagine 1 meal a day would not be optimal for gaining weight - not because it's "bad," but because it would probably be very difficult to get 3500+ calories in one meal.

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Click to expand...

My point was that meal frequency really doesn't matter that much.

I don't think you're saying what you're trying to say.

I believe you're trying to say that the importance of meal timing is specific to the individual; there is not set rule.

But what that statement really says (in the quotes) is that it doesn't matter when people eat, which isn't true.

Meal frequency does matter but the frequency is determined by the individual rather than an arbitrary number. Some people need to eat 6 times a day, some people don't; more of a mental thing.

(first sentence in a paragraph is usually what people pay attention to most and perceive the rest of the paragraph differently as a result )

No, meal frequency is not specific to the individual. If a person eats 3 meals a day, or if he eats 6 a day, as long as his calories and macros are identical, he will get the same results. I'd be willing to amend my view if I saw some research suggesting otherwise, but everything I'm familiar with says that meal timing does not matter. Where meal frequency does matter is in an individual's ability to stick to his diet. Since it doesn't matter how often you eat, you should pick the schedule that allows you to consistently get the nutrition you need for your goals, whatever they are. If you break your diet on 3 meals a day, that would be a bad choice. If you find 6 tiny meals intolerable, that would be a bad choice too. Edit: said meal timing when I meant frequency

I think timing does matter, but not necessarily whether you have three or six meals. Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, spaced apart by 2-3 hours is fine, as is eating six meals spaced apart with a bit less time. Eating three meals from 9 PM to 2 AM, getting up at 10 AM and not eating until 9 PM is not going to be the same as eating six evenly spaced meals, at least IMO/IME.

I edited above. I meant to say frequency doesn't matter. I'd definitely agree that timing (i.e. pre, post-workout) does. The Intermittent Fasting stuff seems to have led to a reevaluation of the research. If anyone knows of some good studies that show that meal frequency makes a difference, I'd love to see them. But the Alan Aragon article I linked earlier is one of the best reviews on the subject I've seen, and its conclusion was that frequency isn't important.

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Click to expand...

I edited above. I meant to say frequency doesn't matter. I'd definitely agree that timing (i.e. pre, post-workout) does. The Intermittent Fasting stuff seems to have led to a reevaluation of the research. If anyone knows of some good studies that show that meal frequency makes a difference, I'd love to see them. But the Alan Aragon article I linked earlier is one of the best reviews on the subject I've seen, and its conclusion was that frequency isn't important.

Yeah, I agree with that to some degree. I think there's a pretty good amount of published literature on the relationship between blood insulin levels, cortisol levels, and meal timing, though, but I think three well-timed meals would be fine even given those constraints though.