Todd Moody wrote:
I am considering trying it again, just to see what effect it has on
fasting BG.  Ori Hofmekler claims that eating this way enhances nutriest
utilization, especially protein utilization.  And he concedes that this
way of eating goes against virtually all nutritional guidelines.  I
recall a study, a few years back, involving two groups of people
consuming the same number of calories each day; one group consuming them
all at one meal, the other distributed over 5 or 6 small meals.
Although the calories were the same, the ones eating more frequently
lost more weight--another blow to "calories are just calories", but
seemingly not a finding that supports this way of eating.  Of course,
it's possible that the once-a-day group lost less weight because they
gained muscle.  I don't remember if the study looked at that
(unfortunately, too few diet studies look at body composition) and I
can't locate it again to check.

We have discussed intermittent fasting (IF) more than once on this
list.  The animal study of IF involved alternate day eating, without net
reduction of calories, and the results indicated that the benefits of
caloric restriction could be achieved in this way.  Hofmekler believes
the same results can be obtained by once-a-day eating (plus his
"allowed" nibbling)--daily IF, if you will--but I don't think it has
been tested yet.

Like you, Richard, I find this approach psychologically easier.  It
really doesn't bother me much to forego eating during the day if I know
I can have what I want at dinner.  The key to any diet, as I see it, is
to minimize the mental energy that must be expended to stay on it,
whether it be counting carbs, calories, fat grams, points, or whatever.
The advantage of the Hofmekler approach is that instead of counting,
it's a discipline of waiting.  He recommends eating around 7.  When I've
tried this, I found that the only difficult part of the day was the
period between about 4 in the afternoon and dinnertime.  And I believe
that was psychological/habitual, as much as anything.  I'd get home
somewhere during that window of time, and as soon as I get home I
instinctively would want to eat something.  It hasn't changed since I
was a kid.  I'd come home from school and the first thing I'd do is look
for something to eat.  If I simply stayed out til 7 I don't think it
would bother me at all, but that doesn't work for various other reasons.

Anyway, I'm willing to give it another go. 

-----------------------------

Yes, the fundamental difference with the rodent studies and what we are doing is the once per day versus once every other day eating.

I don't think this will make a big difference, though this is entirely speculative. I think the critical thing is that your body regulates its own blood sugar without benefit of ingested food for a period of hours every day. I don't think we lose this ability if we eat once per day, at night. 

The rodents were allowed to eat as much as they wanted every other day for the entire day, if I read the study correctly. But their bodies managed to regulate blood sugar during the fasting days.

Two key things are that we feel tired after we eat. Really tired. And we feel mentally sharp during the day, and not low or weak even when we haven't eaten for awhile.

I think these are clues that our bodies are regulating our BG very evenly, and responding with high insulin sensitivity when we finally do eat, and therefore deriving the benefits of IF.

--Richard
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm