I am more inclined to agree with 3J. The law of thermodynamics is all true, well and good but it doesn't tell you everything that's going on. It reasons that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and if something is getting larger then it must be taking more energy can it is consuming but that's the same as asking why is this room so full with people and then answering, the room is getting more filled with people because more people are entering than leaving but it tells you nothing about why more people are entering than leaving in the first place. Why is the excess calories going into fat rather than muscle or bone growth. There's a piece to the puzzle missing. I believe that to be the role hormones play. The same reason why children's appetite increase during puberty and them suddenly eating a lot more than normal but gaining muscle and bone density over gaining fat. I also believe the timing of meals will affect these hormones and that will definitely affect weight loss
The law of thermodynamics tells you enough of what's going on to the point that its sufficient for the masses and those that don't need to know the science behind it to apply it properly. You answered your own analogy, the reason the room is more crowded is because more people are entering than exiting. Everyone has a specific p-ratio (calorie partitioning ratio), rate of protein synthesis, etc. these factors are determined by genetics and the role diet plays on them is minimal. In other words no matter what your dieting philosophy or types of foods you eat, the amount of change it has on these factors is minute and sometimes not even quantifiable. You're p-ratio and rate of muscle protein synthesis are two of the bigger factors in determining where calories go to (muscle or fat) in a surplus and where they come from (muscle or fat) in a deficit. Muscle is also more metabolically active and expensive tissue and not vital to survival whereas fat is less metabolically active but necessary for survival and hormonal functions. If the body were to put 100% energy into muscle, it does so at the sacrifice of fat. The body is adept at realizing fat is more important than muscle for survival which is why you notice it's harder to cut fat the lower your body fat % is. Conversely if you're clinically obese, its easier to build muscle and burn fat bc the body knows you have more than a sufficient supply of fat for survival. The bodies main purpose is to protect and maintain homeostasis and when BB'ers try to maintain a 5'10" 235lbs at 7% BF it realizes that's not homeostasis. That's what we want as individuals not what the body "needs".
You're reasoning of why children's appetite increases and muscle and bone density go up at a rate faster than fat is putting the cart in front of the horse. Hormones do play a key role in that fact but its not due to diet, its due to hormones. You make it sound (whether intentional or not) that its the children's diet that affects these hormones enough to produce the result you mentioned, not that it's the hormones that affect the hunger level and rate of muscle and fat gain. Leptin levels are a key component to hunger, satiety, and energy intake and these levels rise with age. So as a child goes from infancy to adulthood his leptin levels rise with age increasing appetite and lowering satiety to the point where enough nutrients and calories are taken in to support the bodies biological processes. You are right food intake and meal timing will affect hormonal levels, but ONLY MINIMALLY and not to a clinically significant degree. A rough order of importance for fat loss would be:
1) Create an appropriate caloric deficit/set caloric intake appropriately
2) Set protein intake
3) Set dietary fat intake
Everything else can be adjusted and tailored to suit your needs, convenience, and whatnot. Meal timing does not raise your metabolism or "keep the furnace going" the TEF (thermic effect of food) is roughly ~10% no matter whether you eat 6 500-calorie meals or 3 1000-calorie meals. Nutrient timing is grossly overrated since the bodie's digestion and nutrient absorption is dictated by the ileal tract which can and will slow absorption and nutrient release based upping total volume of food intake. Eat a large meal with 80g protein and the body slows digestion to where you absorb almost everything and won't "piss out anymore than 30g of protein". Eat a small meal and the ileal tract ramps up digestion and those nutrients are absorbed quicker. You can get results from the warrior diet (1-2meals a day fasting the remaining time) or the typical 6-8 BB meals. This tells you that meal timing and frequency is not the #1 condition for muscle gain or fat loss. Thermodynamics is the most important aspect to it, to gain muscle or lose fat you must take in an excess or deficit in calories respectively. Meal timing should be a matter of convenience and life-style factors. If you enjoy eating many small meals a day by all means go for it. If due to scheduling and other factors you can only eat a few smaller meals a day than don't obsess over it, the results will not differ enough to matter.
The lower BF you get, talking single digits here, the more important other factors become but this only becomes important for ~5% of us or those wishing to step on stage since the rest of us will not realistically see sub 8% BF for a prolonged period of time. To sum it all up, worrying about hormones affected through diet, nutrient timing, meal frequency and timing, etc is akin to worrying about the things that will make ~5% of the difference. Ppl will obsess over this not realizing its effects are small and therefore will begin to neglect the more important aspects of total calorie intake and macro/micro nutrient sufficiency which will produce most of the result you seek.
). All that diet done was gave me a huge gut and skinny arms ( stopping exercise shouldnt make you go that fat, if you eat good diet)
