Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Click the "Create Account" button now to join.

To disable ads, please log-in.

Shop at TeamEstrogen.com for women's cycling apparel.

Results 1 to 5 of 5

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Limbo
    Posts
    8,769

    Eat More to Lose Weight

    2008 Trek FX 7.2/Terry Cite X
    2009 Jamis Aurora/Brooks B-68
    2010 Trek FX 7.6 WSD/stock bontrager

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Western Massachusetts
    Posts
    304
    Thanks , Zen. Maybe this is the reason why I am struggling to lose weight on Weight Watchers.
    Please visit my etsy shop and support avian rescue and sanctuary efforts:
    http://www.BagsofAFeather.etsy.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    9,324
    That's kind of a misleading report. Resting metabolic rate is not just based on multiplying your weight times ten. There are lots of other factors.

    To me it sounds like reporters trying to give a panacea to the masses.

    Veronica
    Discipline is remembering what you want.


    TandemHearts.com

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    4,632
    While I agree that the calculation of the resting metabolic rate that they give is ridiculous, the report's not entirely wrong. The problem is that the title is misleading. It's not "eat more." It's "eat smaller meals more often." Otherwise, it doesn't look like terrible advice.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, OR
    Posts
    5,023
    I think what they meant was "eat more OFTEN to lose weight".

    That article is chock-full of generalizations and some can be quite wrong (like the body weight x 10 thing), but overall, I agree that the general principles they suggest are sound.
    My new non-farm blog: Finding Freedom

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •