The 6 worst pieces of weight-loss advice

[LowFatMilk]

The 6 worst pieces of weight-loss adviceThere's a world of weight-loss advice out there, and it's hard to know what to trust. Here, we've collected six pieces of weight-loss advice you don't want to follow, with tips on what to do instead.

By Kat Tancock

Healthy, long-lasting weight loss is hard. Don't make it any harder by following bad advice. We've scoured magazines and the Internet for the six worst pieces of weight-loss advice we could find – and given you practical alternatives.

Bad weight-loss advice #1: Eat five meals a day
Why it doesn't work: Assuming 1,800 calories a day, this means each meal would have to be 360 calories, about the amount in just one of our Morning Glory Muffins. But for most of us, eating this way means feeling not quite full all day long – a recipe for disaster when snacks show up in the office or your kids leave food on their plates. Plus, it means eating out of sync with other people.

What's better: Eat three larger meals, leaving yourself room for a couple of 150-calorie snacks. Schedule your snacks based on when your cravings usually strike, and make sure to include the odd treat to keep your taste buds happy.

Bad weight-loss advice #2: Don’t eat after 7 p.m.
Why it doesn’t work: Assuming you're eating reasonable quantities of healthy foods throughout the day, there's no reason you can't have an evening snack, even if it's something sugary or salty. There's no evidence that ingesting calories later in the day makes you gain weight. Plus, if you're among those who go to the gym right after work, when else are you supposed to eat?


What's better: Plan your eating schedule according to your lifestyle. If you work out or chase after kids in the evening, you may need more fuel at that time of day; if you spend your post-work hours communing with your couch, make lunch bigger and have a light dinner. But if you're prone to overeating at night, to curb mindless eating try brushing your teeth when you decide you're done for the day.


Bad weight-loss advice #3: Don't eat carbs
Why it doesn't work: Well, for one thing, your body needs carbs. "They are vital for providing energy for our bodies and brains," note Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin, authors of healthy-eating guides Skinny Bitch and Skinny Bitch in the Kitch. By avoiding carbs, you're avoiding a whole range of healthy foods that provide necessary nutrients to your body, like vegetables, fruits and whole grains. And even if a low-carb diet helps you lose weight in the short term, it's not a sustainable long-term solution, and may lower your energy levels, leaving you less able to maintain healthy amounts of exercise.

What's better: Be smart about carbs. Choose whole grains over refined, eat plenty of fruits and vegetables and make sure to include healthy protein sources in your meals for optimal nutrition.

Bad weight-loss advice #4: Don't eat fat
Why it doesn’t work: Your body needs fat just as much as it needs carbs and protein. Fat makes food taste better and helps keep you satisfied. And low-fat on food labels often translates into high-sugar, which certainly isn't going to help you lose weight.

What's better: Choose high-quality fats and don't eat too many of them. The best way to do this is to eat foods that contain healthy fats, such as fish, nuts and seeds, olive oil and avocado. Cut back on foods high in unhealthy fats, such as butter, lard (and products containing these, such as cookies and pastries), fatty meats and fatty cheeses and dairy products.


Bad weight-loss advice #5: Trust food packaging
Why it doesn't work: Low carb, trans fat free, low calorie – packaged foods are laden with these labels meant to convince you that they're healthy choices. (Low-carb ketchup? How much are you eating of it, anyway?) But the claims manufacturers are allowed to make are complex and not always intuitive, and a product low in one bad-for-you ingredient is often made more flavourful by pumping up quantities of another. Besides, a trans-fat-free cookie is still a cookie.

What's better: Instead of trusting what the packaging tells you, trust your common sense, say Freedman and Barnouin. "Read the ingredients," they write. "If you plan on eating something, you should know exactly what it is." Watch for added sugar (including glucose, corn syrup and other sugar substitutes), unhealthy fats and fillers. Once you've read the ingredients and the calorie count (don't forget to check the suggested serving size), you may decide you'd rather have an orange.

Bad weight-loss advice #6: Eat lots of soup
Why it doesn't work: Well, this one does – sometimes. The truth is, it depends on the soup. Just don't assume that all soups are created equal, especially when you're eating out. Avoid anything creamy or with tons of oil floating on top, and if you're eating at a restaurant that provides nutrition information for its menus, find out exactly how healthy that cup of soup is.

What's better: Broth-based soups, or soups made creamy through the addition of pureed vegetables or grains, are low in calorie density, meaning they're filling but still low-calorie. They make an excellent option for a light meal (serve with bread or crackers) or starter. For the healthiest picks, make vegetable- and legume-heavy soup at home, and pack it in a Thermos for lunch.

Don't shoot the messanger My favorite being the "don't eat after 7pm".

Hopefully no one else posted it.

 

[maleficent]

Bad weight-loss advice #1: Eat five meals a day
Why it doesn't work: Assuming 1,800 calories a day, this means each meal would have to be 360 calories, about the amount in just one of our Morning Glory Muffins. But for most of us, eating this way means feeling not quite full all day long – a recipe for disaster when snacks show up in the office or your kids leave food on their plates. Plus, it means eating out of sync with other people.

What's better: Eat three larger meals, leaving yourself room for a couple of 150-calorie snacks. Schedule your snacks based on when your cravings usually strike, and make sure to include the odd treat to keep your taste buds happy.

some people can be very successful on the 5 a day plan - it didn't work for me but - it does work for some -to say that it's bad weight loss advice is a little too one size fits all for me...

People need to find what works for them..

Bad weight-loss advice #5: Trust food packaging
Why it doesn't work: Low carb, trans fat free, low calorie – packaged foods are laden with these labels meant to convince you that they're healthy choices. (Low-carb ketchup? How much are you eating of it, anyway?) But the claims manufacturers are allowed to make are complex and not always intuitive, and a product low in one bad-for-you ingredient is often made more flavourful by pumping up quantities of another. Besides, a trans-fat-free cookie is still a cookie.

What's better: Instead of trusting what the packaging tells you, trust your common sense, say Freedman and Barnouin. "Read the ingredients," they write. "If you plan on eating something, you should know exactly what it is." Watch for added sugar (including glucose, corn syrup and other sugar substitutes), unhealthy fats and fillers. Once you've read the ingredients and the calorie count (don't forget to check the suggested serving size), you may decide you'd rather have an orange.

This one is my favorite.. in my other life -i'd get really hung up on fat free/sugar free/whatever free foods -thinking somewhere in the dark recesses of my brain that the calories didn't count... Yeah dumbass... real food tastes so m uch better - if you have to use a little less -then so be it... I'm not gonna be a good looking corpse I don't need the preservatives and other non real food added crap in my food.. real only please.

 

[edco76]

Looks like pretty solid article. Thanks for sharing!

 

[LandonsBaby]

i eat 4-6 times per day. i don't work outside the home so i'm sure that is part of why it works so well for me. it wouldn't be as easy if i were at work all day.

 

[Layri]

Bad weight-loss advice #1: Eat five meals a day
Why it doesn't work: Assuming 1,800 calories a day, this means each meal would have to be 360 calories, about the amount in just one of our Morning Glory Muffins. But for most of us, eating this way means feeling not quite full all day long – a recipe for disaster when snacks show up in the office or your kids leave food on their plates. Plus, it means eating out of sync with other people.

What's better: Eat three larger meals, leaving yourself room for a couple of 150-calorie snacks. Schedule your snacks based on when your cravings usually strike, and make sure to include the odd treat to keep your taste buds happy.

I eat about 5 mini-meals a day and doing that is exactly what keeps me feeling full throughout the day. I can't stand the huge food-high and then low of eating three big meals a day- not only that, but many people who are losing weight that I know agree. This one shouldn't have been in that article, especially put so black-and-white as it was.

~Rina

 

[punx122]

based on my experiences:

Bad weight-loss advice #1: Eat five meals a day
true. i can never eat 5 meals a day. i'm fine with the 3. i don't have the time to be spacing meals out.

Bad weight-loss advice #2: Don’t eat after 7 p.m.
also true. you won't gain weight but if you're keeping really close track, you might retain water the next day but not over time.

Bad weight-loss advice #3: Don't eat carbs
also true. i can't go without carbs. i never understood how people could. when i did atkins before, the fourth day on the diet, while i was working out, i passed out. it's from not getting the energy that you need to work out. carbs are like fuel. you need a certain amount of them a day.
it's just much easier and you can count on sticking to calorie intake.

Bad weight-loss advice #4: Don't eat fat
another true one. healthy fats, such as fish, nuts and seeds, olive oil and avocado are great. only very few people can go on a no fat diet all their life. you need it. fat is fuel too.

Bad weight-loss advice #5: Trust food packaging
true true. there's so much other ingredients and junk and oils put into that stuff. it's so much better to eat natural stuff like fruits and veggies and you get better benefits too.

Bad weight-loss advice #6: Eat lots of soup
i beg to differ on this, but not so much. it all depends on the the sodium intake. if you're choosing ones low in calories and sodium then it'll promote weight loss. most soups are so high in sodium, it's ridiculous. you'll retain so much water, you'll think you ate a whole buffet when you step on the scale.

there are so many myths out there.

 

[BobCW]

A line of logic I really cannot stand:

Bad weight-loss advice #1: Eat five meals a day
Why it doesn't work: Assuming 1,800 calories a day, this means each meal would have to be 360 calories, about the amount in just one of our Morning Glory Muffins. But for most of us, eating this way means feeling not quite full all day long – a recipe for disaster when snacks show up in the office or your kids leave food on their plates. Plus, it means eating out of sync with other people.

What's better: Eat three larger meals, leaving yourself room for a couple of 150-calorie snacks. Schedule your snacks based on when your cravings usually strike, and make sure to include the odd treat to keep your taste buds happy.

This is akin to saying that exercising is bad advice because most people give up/don't follow through. While many small meals a day is not some panacea that will bring everyone on the planet down 6 pant sizes, the reasoning behind criticizing it is just bad.

Really I agree with a lot of what they have to say, but blaming the advice given for people's inability to follow through on it has got to go. Not everyone is going to be able, or have the time to do it, but that doesn't mean it's bad advice, and certainly not one of the 6 worst.

 

[richielancair]

My understanding of the theory behind the 5-6 meals a day is it keeps up your metabolism.

Humans are grazing animals according to our teeth, stomach and long small intestine. We are built to go field to field eating or grazing.

If you are eating the proper foods, complex carbs, then it takes about 2-3 hours to move through your stomach. When you go more than 4 - 5 hours your physical brain (sub consious) says "dude were starving must be a famine start storing fat". This then triggers the "starvation mode" which slows down your metabolism until you can start eating again when you get to the next field or whatever.

After we start eating again it takes a few meals to calm down the starvation trigger and speed up the metabolism again. The physical brain wants proof that there really is a good supply of food before he/she recinds the order to stop storing food (as fat).

The snacking side works well with the theory above, but I don't like snacking. Our culture is a culture based on snacking, music, tv, ... When we eat snacks it screws up the digestive cocktail in the stomach, causing undigested food into the digestive track.

More importantly we are creatures of habit and snacking kills the eating routine. When we go into automatic mode we usually keep doing what we have in the past. With a good routine of eating only meals and no snacking we keep on track without much if any effort.

I think everything else in your post is spot on, though.

Thanks, great post.

 

[spartacus26]

I'm not gonna be a good looking corpse I don't need the preservatives and other non real food added crap in my food.. real only please.

I'm on a calorie counter site called Calorie Counter Plus and it has an analysis page where you can see the percentages of fat, carbs, etc. Neat, huh?

It has a section for OTHER. I thought it ended with fat, carbs, alcohol, and protein. What the hell is other?

I don't know, but I ate some when I got Domino's the other night. Sheemoney!

 

[LizCopeland]

My understanding of the theory behind the 5-6 meals a day is it keeps up your metabolism.

True in terms of overall calories, but doesn't it depend on what you use as a snack? Modern processed food snacks are very "more-ish" and portion control may go out the window.

Your point about TV and snacking is very true - a between meals snack to stave off hunger must be portion controlled ( I get people to measure out their snacks before they get hungry) and having the bag of peanuts on your lap while watching TV is not going to be a controlled portion!

So when you follow the weight loss advice you have to

1. read between the lines and
2. be honest about your own behaviour

.

 

[Steve]

My understanding of the theory behind the 5-6 meals a day is it keeps up your metabolism.

That's a popular folklore.

Humans are grazing animals according to our teeth, stomach and long small intestine. We are built to go field to field eating or grazing.

If you are eating the proper foods, complex carbs, then it takes about 2-3 hours to move through your stomach. When you go more than 4 - 5 hours your physical brain (sub consious) says "dude were starving must be a famine start storing fat". This then triggers the "starvation mode" which slows down your metabolism until you can start eating again when you get to the next field or whatever.

This is a gross simplification of how the body actually responds.

The starvation response doesn't 'turn on' every few hours b/c you don't eat.

After we start eating again it takes a few meals to calm down the starvation trigger and speed up the metabolism again. The physical brain wants proof that there really is a good supply of food before he/she recinds the order to stop storing food (as fat).

Care to share your evidence?

 

[Dave_C]

Bad weight-loss advice #2: Don’t eat after 7 p.m.
Why it doesn’t work: Assuming you're eating reasonable quantities of healthy foods throughout the day, there's no reason you can't have an evening snack, even if it's something sugary or salty. There's no evidence that ingesting calories later in the day makes you gain weight. Plus, if you're among those who go to the gym right after work, when else are you supposed to eat?

i always thought that the reason you dont eat in the evenings is because

a: you metabolism slows down when you sleep, there fore your body will turn more of the food into fat rather than energy,
b: when you sleep you arnt burning fat (or very very little) so the food has to go somewhere
c: if you eat later your body has to be active to digest the food, which i believe can cause lack of sleep

i dont know how true any of this is but it seems logical. the version i have heard is dont eat 2 hours before you go to bed, i think 7pm was only every supposed to be a guideline. i could be totally wrong of course

 

[Steve]

a: you metabolism slows down when you sleep, there fore your body will turn more of the food into fat rather than energy,

It's the net that matters.

If you're in a net caloric deficit, you aren't going to be storing fat.

b: when you sleep you arnt burning fat (or very very little) so the food has to go somewhere

Do you know what basal metabolic rate is?

If not, do a quick search.

This accounts for the large majority of energy expenditure and it certainly doesn't go away when we sleep.

 

[richielancair]

The way I understand it is complex carbs determine the fuel your body burns. Green Clean fuel (fat) vs Dirty Fossil fuel (sugar).

I'm sure you are right, portion controlled snacks are better than non controlled snacks.

It's my opionion that snacking does more harm than good.

My plan is to create good routines and habits that once installed you don't think about. You go about your day and your subconcious handles your eating habits. You check in by regular weighings to make sure your routines are still working correctly. Your subconcious handles portion control, meal plans friction free.

Instead of your subconcious taking the day off you put it to work, for you.

I feel that snacking hurts this routine.

Al least that is how I see it.

P.S. I like your advice at the end of your post.

 

[richielancair]

That's a popular folklore.
This is a gross simplification of how the body actually responds.

The starvation response doesn't 'turn on' every few hours b/c you don't eat.
Care to share your evidence?

That is the way I understand it works.

Of course it is a simplication of how it works. There is no evidence of a "physical brain", that is part of the Triun brain theory. But it is a generally accepted principle.

There is no evidence of a border between the United States and Canada but the border does exist and certain things happen if crossed.

There is no evidence that gravity exists, yet we see the results of it every day.

Testing shows that in all mammals control of the metabolic rate is not in concious control, that leaves subconsious control.

How do you understand that metabolism works?

Please include your evidence of "The starvation response doesn't 'turn on' every few hours b/c you don't eat." Since "That's a popular folklore." and I agree it is popular please include your evidence of this statement also.

Thanks in advance

 

[Steve]

The way I understand it is complex carbs determine the fuel your body burns. Green Clean fuel (fat) vs Dirty Fossil fuel (sugar).

The amount of a given fuel used by the body is directly related to the quantity of that substrate at the time.

The body prefers to use glucose.

Carbs breakdown into glucose.

I'm not sure where you're getting the Green Clean vs. Dirty Fossil analogy?

It's my opionion that snacking does more harm than good.

You're running into the problem of overgeneralizing a very complex and individual topic.

I know people who do well with fasting strategies. I know people who do well with nibbling. I know others who do well with a structured, rigid meal plan.

I've tried it all on myself, and have had the great privilege of 'experimenting' with a lot of people.

The bottom line is there is no One Strategy that is universally harmful. It all comes down to the individual response to a given strategy.

My plan is to create good routines and habits that once installed you don't think about. You go about your day and your subconcious handles your eating habits. You check in by regular weighings to make sure your routines are still working correctly. Your subconcious handles portion control, meal plans friction free.

1. How do you plan going about the installation of said habits?

2. How do you account for individual variation in hunger patterns and response to feeding?

3. A response in scale weight doesn't always = a diet is 'working.'

Instead of your subconcious taking the day off you put it to work, for you.

I'm a firm believer in the power of the mind. But the subconscious doesn't control all the biological mechanisms associated with human metabolism.

 

[Steve]

That is the way I understand it works.

Of course it is a simplication of how it works. There is no evidence of a "physical brain", that is part of the Triun brain theory. But it is a generally accepted principle.

There is no evidence of a border between the United States and Canada but the border does exist and certain things happen if crossed.

There is no evidence that gravity exists, yet we see the results of it every day.

Testing shows that in all mammals control of the metabolic rate is not in concious control, that leaves subconsious control.

How do you understand that metabolism works?

Please include your evidence of "The starvation response doesn't 'turn on' every few hours b/c you don't eat." Since "That's a popular folklore." and I agree it is popular please include your evidence of this statement also.

Thanks in advance

So you present a claim.

I ask for evidence.

Yet, the burden or proof shifts to my shoulders, lol.

How about this....

How many people have you successfully walked through permanent weight losses?

Of those people, how many people were facing hurdles such as food addiction, advanced obesity, metabolic disease, etc?

You are completely ignoring the biology of it all and relying on the brain to fix a problem that's been handed down to us through evolution that is clashing with societal transformation.

 

[richielancair]

Dude, WOW relax, this is a discussion.

It's going to be alright.

Try and follow me.

No one knows how gravity works. No one has seen gravity. We can not prove gravity without seeing results. They are building an atom smasher in France and Denmark to try to see it.

When cows are allowed to graze all summer they become lean and their metabolic rate increase. During the winter when fed hay on 8 hour intervals their metabolic rate decreases and they become fat.

Lab rats experience the same thing.

Cows, lab rats and humans are all mammals.

These are results, like gravity, of something that exists, that we can not prove without results. This is a theory, just like the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity (atom bomb).

Now it is your turn to share.

Relax, you can't get this wrong. There are no wrong answers. Ready?

1) How do you think that metabolism works?
2) How do you know, or is it a theory also?
3) How do you know that metabolism doesn't work the way I described?

Relax, this isn't a test. Just give us your best shot at explaining it. No one is going to make you wrong, you're okay. This is an exchange of ideas, we just want to know what you are thinking. Okay?

Remember, no wrong answers, Okay?

Try it, you'll see it will be fun. Don't think so hard, man.

 

[richielancair]

The amount of a given fuel used by the body is directly related to the quantity of that substrate at the time.

The body prefers to use glucose.

Carbs breakdown into glucose.

I'm not sure where you're getting the Green Clean vs. Dirty Fossil analogy?



You're running into the problem of overgeneralizing a very complex and individual topic.

I know people who do well with fasting strategies. I know people who do well with nibbling. I know others who do well with a structured, rigid meal plan.

I've tried it all on myself, and have had the great privilege of 'experimenting' with a lot of people.

The bottom line is there is no One Strategy that is universally harmful. It all comes down to the individual response to a given strategy.



1. How do you plan going about the installation of said habits?

2. How do you account for individual variation in hunger patterns and response to feeding?

3. A response in scale weight doesn't always = a diet is 'working.'



I'm a firm believer in the power of the mind. But the subconscious doesn't control all the biological mechanisms associated with human metabolism.

Great questions,

I will answer them tomorrow. I am going to watch American Chopper. Talk with you tomorrow.

 

[Steve]

Dude, WOW relax, this is a discussion.

It's going to be alright.

That's an interesting remark.

With the facts in mind that a) you don't know me, b) you don't know my writing style and c) you can't read 'tone' over the net... I'd say this is a case of assuming something exists that doesn't.

I'm relaxed, so I'm quite perplexed by what could be WOWing you. Stick to the facts and don't worry about me. Those fallacious tactics don't fly around here.

Try and follow me.

Let me put my super-duper thinking cap on!!!!111

No one knows how gravity works. No one has seen gravity. We can not prove gravity without seeing results. They are building an atom smasher in France and Denmark to see if they can see it.

Oh joy, a ridiculous attempt to rationalize your way out of this by testing my understanding of science and enlighten me about the differences between a hypothesis and a theory and prove that falsifiability does in fact exist when it's nonexistence is something I never claimed.

Let me just break this down for you so far:

You: The starvation response kicks in every 2-3 hours so it would be ideal to eat in a pattern that minimizes this.

Me: No, you are oversimplifying the human body.

You: Gravity is theorized to exist but it can't be seen so we don't know if it's real. Metabolism is the same, so prove to me it's existence.

That's about where we stand now, I think you will agree.

Now for the next "Me:"

What do you know about parsimony? Up to this point, it doesn't seem like a whole heck of a lot.

You're right, all these theories are falsifiable. The theory of gravity was falsified by Einstein. Any theory is falsifiable. You can have a cookie or a trophy if that's what you're after. I haven't seen anyone suggest the contrary but you seem pretty stuck on the idea that it came up.

I can't prove to you that metabolism = X. Your sophistry is trying to paint me into a corner by asking silly questions that are not answerable in a way that would satisfy an end to the debate using your skewed standards since all we're working off of is theoretical. What it comes down to in a case such as this then is you present a case and I present a case.

Parsimony plays a large role at this point in the eyes and minds of anyone who thinks critically.

You've repeated your case exactly twice now with nothing special. As noted above, a bit of sophistry mixed with some lame attempt to suggest all mammals respond the same to a given stressor.

My case is quite simple. I use logic and critical analysis to deduce a hypothesis of what happens in different situations; in this case we'll say 3 vs. 6 meals.

I overlay this with my education of human physiology and the net result is confidence in my working model.

In the real world, I'm able to observe the following:

1) People respond differently to different meal patterns. Some thrive on frequent feedings. Others thrive on infrequent feedings.

2) I've reached single digit body fat levels a number of times using varying tactics... frequent and infrequent feedings. In neither case did a starvation response kick in intraday hinting an efficiency in our metabolic regulation systems to the extent that you suggest exists.

3) I've had the opportunity to apply these same varying tactics to a respectable sample size given my career. Net outcomes were similar further solidifying my hypothesis.

4) Science is shabby in this area, but it exists where no difference is observed between frequent vs. infrequent feedings as it relates to metabolic rate. A few exist below:

Entrez PubMed

Entrez PubMed

Entrez PubMed

Entrez PubMed

Entrez PubMed

5. We have interesting stuff emerging with intermittent fasting. One guy making some noise, of many, can be seen here... Leangains - Intermittent Fasting for Strength Training and Fat Loss. It's not something I personally subscribe to... however it further solidifies the idea that a) the horrid starvation response isn't as 'reactive' as you suggest and b) different strokes for different folks... the human body doesn't respond universally identical to the stress of hypocaloric eating.

6. You can do yourself some good and educate yourself about human metabolic response to starvation. I'll even spoon feed you:

The Biology of Malnutrition

7. While your reading, you might as well check this out too:

Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8. And this:

Ignoratio elenchi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sure I could come up with more but what's the point? I have human data suggesting the starvation response doesn't respond as you explain. Data that is observable and repeatable on a consistent basis across various populations. You have some wanking about theories and falsifiability and some studies on cows and rats (which you didn't present by the way). I'm certainly down for a good debate but so far you aren't really bringing anything to the table here. If you expect to sway my opinion or those of the masses reading this... I suggest you show something a little more concrete. In the meantime, your sophistry is equivalent to me saying, "The sky is red, prove me wrong."

That's not any way to prove a point.

A theory explains or models a real world observation, right?

You stated that the metabolism slows down or the starvation response turns on every 2-3 hours if not 'stoked' by eating more food. Give me a real world, observable instance where this occurs in humans please. It doesn't have to be peer-reviewed research... simply observation will suffice at this point.

Your whole crackpot, idealistic approach to explaining this shits the bed since you don't seem to have real world experience with a) working with people and weight loss IN THE REAL WORLD and b) the fact that people have lost weight and looked and functioned great eating 2 meals per day and others have done the same eating 6 meals per day.

When cows are allowed to graze all summer they become lean and their metabolic rate increase. During the winter when fed hay on 8 hour intervals their metabolic rate decreases and they become fat.

Lab rats experience the same thing.

Funnily enough I thought we were talking about humans. When did the subject change?

Cows, lab rats and humans are all mammals.

Haha, you don't do much research do you?

You are seriously misinformed and I don't mean disrespect at all.

Do some research on Leptin just as one (big) example of how not all mammals are created equal.

These are results, like gravity, of something that exists, that we can not prove without results.

I never said the starvation response doesn't exist. I also never claimed that it's exact workings can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Assumption is the mother of all F-ups and you are littered with them. I simply implied that based on what we know to be true paired with what's observable in the real world (results) we can make a very good wager that human metabolism doesn't function in a way similar to your proposal.

Now it is your turn to share.

I've shared nothing less than you've shared.

Stop trying to dictate the discussion.

Relax, you can't get this wrong. There are no wrong answers. Ready?

1) How do you think that metabolism works?
2) How do you know, or is it a theory also?
3) How do you know that metabolism doesn't work the way I described?

You've got to be kidding me. I'm sure in your world this seems like you're destroying me. You are mentally equipped beyond any to deal with in depth conversation about the subject at hand.

The only thing you're doing though is sounding arrogant with no leg to stand on.

Relax, this isn't a test. Just give us your best shot at explaining it. No one is going to make you wrong, you're okay. This is an exchange of ideas, we just want to know what you are thinking. Okay?

You can't be serious.

If you're seriously interested on my take regarding the adaptational responses to underfeeding the human body, do a search for posts made by me with the words starvation and response in them.

I've explained this in detail more times than I care to repeat on this forum. Your tactics of debate are not enticing in the least and your incessant need to control the discussion doesn't rub me in a way that solicits a response to your ridiculous questions.

Try it, you'll see it will be fun. Don't think so hard, man.

Thinking and critical thought/analysis is what helps me not sound like you do in this thread...

I highly doubt I'm going to start taking advice from you.