I wonder about experts, sometimes.
Recently I tried an intermittent fast: I’d eat a small breakfast, then a late lunch/early dinner, and then nothing until breakfast the following morning, allowing ~14 hours between late lunch and breakfast the next day. The idea, according to experts, is (i) overall caloric intake is reduced; (ii) my body is forced to burn reserves after ~12 hours without food. Net, I should lose weight and (with the gym) get toned. Cool.
The thing is, about this time a few years ago I was eating six small meals a day. I was working out using Beachbody “Insanity” videos, in my tiny Manhattan apartment, and many articles I read on nutrition for toning up prescribed the “six small meals” approach. It would kick-start my metabolism; it would keep me fueled for work-outs; I wouldn’t have periods of hunger, preventing bad snacking.
*sigh*
I wish the “best way to lose weight” wasn’t COMPLETELY different every few years. The experts are pretty useless in this regard. This guy essentially says the “six-meal” stuff is myth. I’m sure the six-mealers would beg to differ. I assume both approaches *can* be effective, but then so can a diet of bread and water.
Surely nutrition experts see how presenting a “new optimal,” requiring a complete behavioral u-turn every few years might confuse the public, leading to potentially worse outcomes than no “optimal” at all? Isn’t there a conference where all can agree before flooding the internet with recommendations? Who are the real experts?