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]