I just read a study reported by WebMD. It suggests that people who eat erratically get more calories and burn them less quickly than those who have set eating times throughout the day.

Ian A. Macdonald studied 10 obese but healthy women who ate whatever they wanted. Some of them ate three snacks and three meals a day with regular intervals between eating. Some of them ate according to a varied schedule, eating from three to nine times a day.

The study lasted for two weeks and Macdonald claimed that when the women ate erratically, they took in more calories. If they ate according to the regular schedule, they took in 120 less calories. Macdonald relied on the participants to report their own food intake.

Okay, I’m having some problems with this “study”. First of all, is 10 enough for a study? It doesn’t seem that there was a control group, either. Also, if the participants are tracking their own food intake, that leaves a lot of room for human error. I don’t discount the theories raised by the study, but I do discount this particular study.

I can understand some of the underlying principles and why low carb may help some people lose some weight. But I just can’t believe that a pack of pork rinds is better to eat than an apple or a banana. One site says that pork rinds are light crunchy chips made from pork skins that are deep-fried in lard. They are high in protein and contain no carbohydrates.

LARD? DEEP-FRIED?

Where are the nutrients in that? What’s the daily RDA for LARD? EWWWWW!