Robert Kesterson wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:02:51 -0600, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Robert Kesterson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Probably because they were starving. If you don't eat all day,
>>> your body is going to be catabolic, burning itself (fat and/or
>>> muscle protein) for fuel.
>>
>>
>> It's not about starvation at all. Your liver stores enough glycogen
>> for about 36 hours of normal activity, so the tissues that need
>> glucose get enough without resorting to cannibalizing muscle--which
>> should not be a problem anyway if one gets enough carbs and protein
>> at that one meal.
>
>
> I'm not talking about a person feeling like they're starving. I'm
> talking about the body's starvation response. What you're describing
> is basically like a cyclical ketogenic diet, just on a 24-hour
> cycle. You burn off the stored glycogen, then you put it all back.
This is *not* a starvation response, and it's unlikely that one would
enter ketosis eating this way, unless one made a point of keeping carbs
so low that liver glycogen would not be replenished. If you go for a
day without eating anything at all, you should have enough stored
glycogen to prevent ketosis until sometime the next day. If you're
eating once a day, and your meal contains 50g or more of carbs, you
shouldn't ever enter ketosis. So there is no need to resort to
gluconeogenesis to produce glucose, and hence no need to convert muscle
tissue.
> I don't have a problem with that. However, I also know that if you
> go for very long taking in fewer calories than you are burning, you
> will trigger the body's starvation response -- it will assume there's
> not enough food to be had, and will slow your metabolism to conserve
> resources. If that's your goal, that's fine. But for people trying
> to lose weight, it can result in a vicious cycle. You reduce
> calories, the body slows the metabolism to compensate. You reduce
> further, it slows the metabolism a little more. And so on.
Let's talk about slowing of the metabolism. It means consuming less
fuel per unit of time. It's true that when you eat less frequently, you
slow your metabolism because the digestion process itself is
metabolically expensive. Digesting food is *work*. So a person who
eats less frequently automatically needs less fuel, because his or her
body is doing less work. Beyond that, extended caloric restriction can
cause the metabolism to slow in other ways, such as reduction of body
temperature. The literature on CR suggests that this slowing is
beneficial for longevity, but I haven't experienced it yet.
> By not taking in any food at all, I can't help but think the body
> will begin conserving resources. I know for me personally, if I eat
> the typical three meals a day, it is tougher for me to lose weight.
> On the other hand, eating six meals a day, it's a lot easier.
But no one is talking about not taking in any food at all. Last night I
ate about a pound of roast beef, a good-sized sweet potato, kalamata
olives, and some broccoli with a bit of feta cheese crumbled over it. A
banana for dessert. Probably 70-80g of carbs for the day. Nobody would
look at that meal and say that I'm on a starvation diet. I'd estimate
it was close to 2,000 kcals.
>> Eating more calories, spread out over more meals, may produce
>> smaller/shorter [insulin] surges, but I think the total isstill greater.
>
>
> But that's one of the reasons I eat numerous smaller meals --
> specifically to *prevent* insulin spikes. My blood sugar stays more
> even throughout the day. In fact, a lot of literature I have seen
> recommends a several-small-meal eating style to those concerned with
> diabetes specifically because of the stabilizing effect it has on
> blood sugar. (I do not have diabetes, though it's not unheard of in
> my family history.)
Yes, but I'm skeptical about anything the diabetes experts say, since
they also typically recommend a high-starch, low-fat diet, which is
sheer insanity. I do *not* think the once-a-day system is a license to
gorge on carbohydrates.
>
> As for whether hunter-gatherers eat one meal or many ... that
> probably depended more on availability than anything else. If there
> was food to be had, I'm sure he ate whenever he was hungry, which was
> probably more than once a day. He may not have had a "sit down
> meal", but a handful of nuts, a piece of fruit, or similar would have
> made for a quick snack.
Indeed. And if, on any given day, I find hunger distracting me, that's
exactly what I do.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|